The way I see it, a ban for communities to operate and offer their own infrastructure, is a blatant effort of companies to kill off the competition.
Why shouldn't I be able to group up with some other people with the aim of providing ourselves our own infrastructure? That's free market. Banning people from competing is not. If a company comes in and can offer better services, well good for them and for us.
Dunno. Maybe the oppressed people of the Fascist States of America need help to free them from their Junta?
Well, maybe they don't want to be free. They're content to have their government to spout their orwellian nonsense about "Freedom" around the world, while imprisoning their own, hunting journalists and having been always at war against "the Terrorists".
It's not like they didn't vote these guys in (well, so did germany in 1933), even when it was crystal clear that Obama neither stood for "transparency", nor for "freedom", and not even for "human rights", unlike the first time, when there was some kind of hope things would change. Well they did, for the worse. Obama took up where Bush Jr. left off and turned the noose tighter. A bit more assassination here, some more torture there, a few more whistleblowers condemned, some more "trade agreements" to fill the coffers of some cronies, a lot more secrecy all over, and of course, building up Bushs illegal surveillance of the people.
I don't think Obama even realizes that what he's doing is completely fascist and totalitarian (as opposed to Cheney for instance, who probably knows very well that he WANTS a totalitarian state) and I can't comprehend how he turned into this.
In any case, I think it's futile to hope for an invasion force that will liberate the USA ;). Not the least because the ideas of the US government have either been exported, or popped up by itself, in most countries around the world.
Oh, and terrorism is of course no solution at all. Terrorism works only ever in one way: Towards totalitarianism. Even if the terrorists think they're working for "freedom"; the backlash will inevitably lead to totalitarianism. Of course, Christians or Muslims wanting to enact their own totalitarian theocracy don't care. The only ones that always loose are those that value liberty.
In the 80ies, heads were rolling when it turned out my government spied on thousands of people indiscriminatingly. Today, laws get enacted to allow them to do just that, and nothing happens to those that illegally spied on us the last decade. And this is in one of the (still) best democracies of the world (The US democracy has long been surpassed by the way, at least since 1848, and since the late 1990ies, I'm suspecting it's not a democracy but a plutocracy).
I think it's going to get bad, really bad, Nazi-Germany bad the next decades, all over the world.
Historical reenactors will have a problem. Jousting, like these do, http://www.orderofthecrescent.com/ in historical armour? Illegal. These things might be hardened, in which case they are resistant against small arms fire. My own armour sure is.
Collectors? Museums? Sorry, their exhibits are now illegal. 15th to 17th century armour is most probably resistant against small arms fire. And WW1 trench armour maybe even against rifles.
Celebrities and their bodyguards? Sorry, they won't be able to wear armour.
Neither can people that do money transfers for banks.
And probably civilians that work with explosives could neither. People from mining or tunnelling companies and such.
I'm pretty sure I missed a lot of professions that depend on some kind of ballistic body protection.
The creationists from the school board were probably very distressed about somebody shooting evidence for intelligent design. The police meanwhile didn't know what the word "cretinism" meant and denied any involvement with intelligence, designed or not.
As expected: The granting [of] patents ‘inflames cupidity', excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits...The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just. -- The Economist, July 26, 1851