make a stand on the issue. At best, I think he just picked a side and decided to root for it. At worst, his policy is dictated by per$onal ethic$. Who is he kidding? I know he had an online presence during the election, but he paid people for that. This joker has no horse in the game, no rooting interest. I would be willing to bet he does not surf the internet for pleasure at home. He probably has one of his staff print off his emails and give them to him in a manila envelope. And this motherfucker is going to try to tell me about what I can and can not do on the internet.
To clear up any confusion on the issue let me explain it as simply as I can. This link also provides some good insight. The issue is pitting content providers such as Google, Yahoo, and the like against internet service providers like Comcast, AT&T, and others. ISP's want to not only give preference to certain internet traffic (i.e. the web pages ad downloading you do) but to charge you on a tiered basis for access to the internet. For instance, you can have cnn.com for free, but you have to upgrade to the higher package to get ebay.com and paypal.com- similar to satellite television service. If you are a person who wants the internet free and open then there is more good news than just having Google on your side. The FCC came out earlier in 2009 and set out rules siding with Google and a freer internet. For know, things look good as far as keeping the internet neutral, but if the government decides they need more tax revenue look for this to be a hot button issue (see: climate change.) Then you will no longer be able to view internet quality such as this at will.