The thing where you encourage a broadness of mind and whatnot would appear to be almost hypocritical should your approach to me be furthered. I will continue in good faith though. I am still stuck on the fundamental notion. That being any service level filtering gets to happen at the behest of the customer (if the ISPs want to provide such a service, people sign up for fancy whatever blocking DNS services all the time and the ISP is in a prime position to offer such a thing) and not the ISPs alone, barring the likes of the intranet thing from earlier (don't sell me internet if it is not), government censorship (do they block kiddy fiddling sites and what have you, possibly tricky under US law but done some other places in the world) and the rest. I could well see the law in question being too broad or otherwise unworkable, indeed that is my usual request for those arguing against it, but the examples you use would appear to run counter to the thing I hold as a fundamental. Going further should such things be the only way to allow it to work (we are quite far from physical limits or even present technological ones -- loads of other places in the world do far better) then we might have some grounds for a debate but thus far there appear to be eminently workable solutions up to and including "do nothing and let it all slow down". Even if we take the example of the radio carriers and ignore the rest of my arguments why would that in turn then want to apply to people with fat pipes in the ground? That is not a reason to repeal neutrality as whole but maybe create a working group to generate new legislation or classes of operators. Though in those cases I am still back to bandwidth limits, maybe network wide slowdowns in congested periods, bandwidth limits during certain time periods... all things done as far back as phone lines and I have examples of all of those all over the world. The ISPs might have some sympathy from me if it turns out a technology rose up and made the sands shift under them (though anybody that did not see the rise of online video coming was clearly not paying attention -- the demand has been there since the days of realplayer), however still not a reason to filter. Earlier you accused me of idealism. I would contend it is borderline idealistic to expect ISPs to play fair. Also you mentioned anti trust... such things are necessarily quite hard to pull off and take a long time. As the reasoning for such laws goes far further than this I am OK with having a law of lesser scope for this scenario.