"nor enforceable by federal prosecutors" It is not the prosecution who would enforce it. It is civil law. I would take the ISP to court if they discriminate ag

"nor enforceable by federal prosecutors" It is not the prosecution who would enforce it. It is civil law. I would take the ISP to court if they discriminate against me, not the prosecution. Art. 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is one line also. It states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." That is very much enforceable. You can take the government to court if they do not uphold this "romantic, childlike, wishcraft-dominated thinking" Of course, the law being the law, there will be exceptions. These exceptions however in our common law system are created on a case by case basis when the facts are so as to merit an exception. Not to mention that freedom of speech is a much bigger area than the simple matter of internet traffic. Yet, we all know where we stand in regards to what we can say. "I would prefer an ISP which privileged web browsing and VOIP over BitTorrent and bulk email/video/software downloads." - That is a debate to be had. I would not want web browsing to be preferred over e-mail, which can be web browsing, video, or software or even BitTorrent though I do not use it. You can not however argue, just because you preferred it, by rhetorically asking "Why make providing a service some people will prefer a federal crime?" I am sure some people would prefer contracting a serial killer, stealing rather than working, or more close to home, smoking weed to be legal. "We've made it almost 20 years without FCC rules to protect the internet." My point earlier was that the internet was in its infancy. There were spots to be filled, small ventures to rise to big corporations, little guys to be made giants, the whole thing was very new and chaotic, everyone fighting to get a piece of the pie. Now the ISPs are sort of established, have their market shares, and perhaps just want to secure themselves. So too with big corporations. Sure they can be thrown out easier than in the real world, but the internet reflects the real world much more today than in the past 20 years. In my personal opinion, the FCC would not be involved in the matter. The law would give rights to citizens. The internet is not like the telly where a few people control what we see, the internet is like the streets and just as I can sue my local council if I had an accident due to their negligence, so too I should be able to sue the ISP if they discriminate against my traffic. "It is not true that "we must assume... vast powers of control" are about to spring some trap. We can wait until actual harms are demonstrated -- if ever. We can wait even further, until such harms persist after enough time " First, they came for the communists... Healthy scepticism is good. I think that currently we all know the telecos want to prioritise traffic to make a lot of profit for themselves, we also know that this would create a tiered system of haves and have nots. We know that a level playing field is better. We know that traffic prioritisation would only benefit the telecos and big companies and screw the little guys. I would rather such things did not happen in the first place and the competition focused on improving the infrastructure and innovation, rather than bang their heads against iron doors.