Oddly, although this is how the NN debate gets talked about (providers limiting consumer access), that's not what the FCC has been arguing about in the US; they

Oddly, although this is how the NN debate gets talked about (providers limiting consumer access), that's not what the FCC has been arguing about in the US; they've been arguing about whether people can build private fiber between tier 1's and selectively route over it (in practical terms, it's always been "route my own traffic only"). For that matter, in the US an ISP can say "I refuse to route certain traffic to and from certain nodes"; if this were not the case you couldn't have any RBLs. India's legal situation is different from the US's (I've lived in India for the past couple of years and all I can say is that the legal situation is byzantine, confusing, and often self-contradictory) but that same basic capability is there: a provider can refuse to route arbitrary traffic. And this as-implemented is seen as a Good Thing. So... where's the line for that? Is there a legal difference between a small whitelist and an arbitrarily-large blacklist? Does the intention of the provider matter? (And if it does, how long until "congestion" gets thought up as a way to limit traffic to the 16 walled gardens they want?)