I suggested that one looks for corruption behind the judges decision. I did not they they definitely took bribes. If I was not clear in what I said, then my bad.
And additionally, how do you define "proof" ?
Do we have proof that the CIA is murdering farmers in South America, because they won't bow down to Monsanto?
Do we have proof that fracking is bad and pollutes groundwater and increases the risk of earth tremors?
Do we have proof that cell phones/wireless radio waves cause cancer?
Do we have proof that global warming is happening?
Do we have proof that religious leaders and core big business leaders are part of a clique, who heavily influence world events?
Do we have proof that pesticides and GM crops are killing off bees?
?
Instead of asking for proof rather ask why or how.
Big ISP's want to control the net. They have ties with news/media outlets and programmed television (advertising)
I fully agree with you that the ruling was not one-sided and there is a long road ahead to road-map the sanctity of net-neutrality.
I just don't believe they were 100% impartial in their ruling. They needed to take the whole concept of net-neutrality into consideration, but then they will argue that is not in their mandate.
Meanwhile freedom of expression and freedom of data is threatened.
