It's hard to see such a clear obvious case & come out so preposterously incredibly fantastically wrong. > The question is whether, in so doing, they are merely

It's hard to see such a clear obvious case & come out so preposterously incredibly fantastically wrong. > The question is whether, in so doing, they are merely a conduit for data transmission (a so-called "dumb pipe") and thus offer consumers a telecommunications service (as the Safeguarding Order concludes); or whether, instead, Broadband Internet Service Providers offer consumers the capability to acquire, store, and utilize data-and thus offer consumers an information service. In our view, the latter is the best reading of the Act. This doesn't match probably 9x 9's of internet traffic! This is almost never the case! What do we do when government is so blankety inept? How do we reconcile a court that's allowed decide things with no respect to obvious facts? Why are there so few ways of dealing with these people in any serious capacity, getting them out of here?