How about all of the above?

I'm willing to bet there are provisions in there for further NSA-related cruft. I'm also suspicious that this will set the stage for increasing the tax burden on consumers, but that remains to be seen.

Also the free press and new america's open technology institute. Google and the 2 of them offered a revision in language to close a loophole, which would imply all 3 had access to it.

Just because you don't agree with the content doesn't they don't read it. :-) I'm sure the people that matter do read it, but they aren't concerned with the general public. Their only mission is to keep the populous naive while they do the bidding of their superiors (powerful leaders, lobbyists, corporations, etc...)

Don't forget the MPAA and RIAA.

You know, it's funny you mention this...

I was thinking last night about how I haven't heard much from these two organizations over the whole net neutrality debate. But then I started wondering why the FCC commissioners kept using the phrase "legal content" in the context of these regulations. Maybe I'm a touch paranoid, but it almost sounds too coincidental.

Gosh, I hope it's not true, but now that you mention it, they probably handed more than an olive branch to these two clowns.

Even if such a thing were included, it is utterly unenforceable without breaking encryption and rendering all e-commerce and other secure uses of the Internet compromised.