<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>3 out of 4 Lawyers Surveyed... in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19538465</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:54:23 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:54:23 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>3 out of 4 Lawyers Surveyed...</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19538465</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><b>funchords</b></A> : That CNET story is such a tortured piece of crap.  I had to read it 3 times this morning before I finally figured out what CNET was trying to say.  <br><br>Basically, two lawyers are disagreeing with two other lawyers about what one of the bills say.  <br><br>And the bill they're arguing about basically mandates that the FCC make rules -- and those will have the details to argue over.<br><br>The good news is that three of the lawyers support Network Neutrality, and two of them say that Markley's bill should have MORE teeth in it than it currently does.  The third says it fine.<br><br>The fourth lawyer is anti-Neutrality, but even he says that Markley's bill would cover the situation based on application discrimination.<br><br>--Robb<br><small>--<br>Robb Topolski -= <A HREF="http://funchords.com/">funchords.com</a> =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA<br><i>Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? <A HREF="/forum/r18901881-">How to test it!</a> -or- <A HREF="/forum/r18323368-">Read my original report.</a></i></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19538465</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:20:05 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
