Boy, the MLS sure knows how to make itself look pathetic to the consumer out there. No disrespect to the person posting as a member of the public, but why would any consumer want to restrict the display of their home information when they are trying to sell that home? In most Boards of Realtors, the Directors are all active Realtors; the office staff are employees of the members of that Board. The Directors, in conjunction with the legal counsel and sometimes the membership, make the rules that the membership agree to work by. Can one honestly believe that this case is anything more than bad-ol' self-serving protectionism? I wonder, have the people fighting to keep e-realty out of the MLS ever bought something at Target, or Wal Mart, or if they've ever bought a book online? (Or do they always buy at Nordstroms?) Sure they have. And because they didn't perceive that spending as negatively affecting their own incomes, they were happy to do it. And now, along comes someone with a business model that allows consumers to save money, and to short-cut the Realtor who doesn't want to offer the same savings to consumers, and we hear that lame message: It's crooked! It's Corrupt! It MUST BE STOPPED! To quote some hockey commentator, BULLPUCKEY Surely the whole issue must rest on whether the services offered by e-realty are good for the consumer? So, let the Austin BOR prove that e-realty harms consumers. I wonder if the BOR would take the same approach to a member who found some other legal way to reduce expenses sufficiently that they could reduced fees to the consumer? Price fixing may be illegal in the courts, but so many BOR haven't heard that yet; they do everything in, and some things beyond, their power to stop the progress. Excuse my passion, but this issue is near & dear to me for 6 years now, due to personal experience, and successful battles over 2 years that went to the Federal Governement level in Canada over the same sort of issue.