>Blocking at the DNS level and routing level is technically a breach of the contract with the customer, (...) A salient point. Throw in "False advertising", be

>Blocking at the DNS level and routing level is technically a breach of the contract with the customer, (...) A salient point. Throw in "False advertising", because they advertise providing providing Internet access but instead provide their own "walled garden internet" access. I would add that it should also strip the ISPs of their safe harbor protections[1] if they choose to perform editorial function of the Internet's content, instead of being providers of dumb pipes. If they want to editorialize, sure, by all means, go for it - but play by the relevant legal rules. How about this: when an ISP is found to have excercised editorial control of the internet, we penalize the ISP by stripping of save harbor protections[1] for 1 years into the future, and also deem them to have willingly rescinded the save harbor protections[1] during the whole period they were making editorial choices? Effectively making the editorializing ISPs liable for every single copyright infringement, libel, and any other relevant transgression that went on their platform while they were performing editorializing, and would be otherwise shielded from if they were proper dumb pipes. Let the ISPs decide whethey they want editorial control, or safe harbor protections. No more Schrödinger's ISPs holding on to both privileges that are supposed to be mutually exclusive. [1] DMCA 512, aka Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, and any other relevant.