This is just an astonishingly stupid and ignorant decision made by people who cannot relate at all to the consumers this stands to negatively effect. In essence, their argument is that if you don't like your ISP blocking your service, you are free to switch to another provider. That's a stupid argument even if it is true, but it's not true at all, making it even more amazingly clueless.
From this Washington Post blog, here are two maps: The first shows portions of the United States with access to wireline broadband, the second shows parts of the country with access to at least two wireline broadband providers:
So clearly most of the country does not, in fact, have the means to switch providers. And just as importantly, is having two options even really much of a choice anyway? If you have two providers available to you, what are the odds that one of them is going to be any better than the other, in this regard? Totally unrealistic, in my opinion. There are also the costs and inconveniences associated with switching Internet providers, the contracts some service providers require...
And don't get any crazy ideas like creating locally owned and operated networks: The Telcoms have made sure the state governments one by one have seen how dangerous THAT is, and gotten laws passed to protect their monopolies - even in areas that the Telcoms do not or cannot provide service.
Of course, it would've been helpful if you stated what the ruling by the MA Supreme Court was, but I can go look that up in a minute I guess. Anyway, my question for AWA is this: What happens to divorce court after the government gets out of marriage?