> It's a good example of why we have representatives representing the people and we don't have a traditional democracy. Exactly. It's worrisome to me that near

> It's a good example of why we have representatives representing the people and we don't have a traditional democracy. Exactly. It's worrisome to me that nearly all political campaigns have been driven by emotional rubbish without any regard for possible repercussions. Yet, you're decried and rebuked for daring to suggest that we probably ought to stop and think very cautiously about what it is we're asking for! On the other hand, our representatives are paid for by lobbyists and seldom appeal to their constituents even if it's in the latter's best interests. I can only hope at this point that these regulations are not so overbearing and damaging that it harms innovation. But with 700+ regulations on the books now, I'm feeling somewhat pessimistic. I rather wish the FCC focused exclusively on what it was so-called "net neutrality" was originally intended to do. But now I'm afraid that if their language is too broad, Mark Cuban may be right, and it might affect QoS and related protocols. (I don't think that would happen--and I feel Mr. Cuban may be a touch paranoid--but politicians aren't exactly known for their technological prowess either.) I'm truly sorry for my pessimism. I just don't have much faith.