Much of this discussion actually looks at things somewhat backward, IMO. The government would actually be the anti-regulation force here, and the ISPs the regulators. Consider this: One option is to have a free-flowing Internet where everything is equal, and just allowed to happen. The "Information Superhighway" would be allowed to be a "free market" of ideas and content. The other option is to have business executives decide they want to reward some of that traffic and punish others, or favor some customers over others, or charge extra fees for certain uses while subsidizing others. No content is guaranteed passage, but rather must meet the particular rules set forth for it. Which one of those sounds like regulation to you? Clearly it is the latter, which is the one done by ISPs, dictating which traffic will be "special" and which will be hindered. The former is not regulation by the government, but a mandate that regulation must not be done by corporations. The first case, with free flow of information, is the hands-off approach that allowed the Internet to flourish. The difference is that now the corporations have the technology to put a stop to that, so people are asking the government to intervene in order to protect the integrity of the Internet's nature as it has been from the beginning. - Tony Yarusso