"Actually the current FCC regulations that are to be passed include sections forbidding T Mobile amongst others from streaming music to cell phones."

Normative citations (since you claimed "sections"), or it's made up.

Think about AT&T providing tapping of Internet trunks. What makes you think you can trust a private company to do things right without oversight?

A "republican" holds a political ideology. A "Republican" is associated with the party.

Which service provider do you work for?

"The internet has been largely unregulated and that has been a really good thing. Most of the growth and innovation we've seen has happened there."

This is not regulation of the Internet, but regulation of the means by which the Internet is accessed.

There are more than a few comparable regulatory actions which helped create the growth of the Internet. Significantly, there was the Carterphone action, which allowed modems to be connected to the Bell network, against their wishes. There was also state regulation of the Bells, which prevented them from charging exorbitant rates for those modem connections. There are the common carrier regulations, by which telco providers receive free or very low cost access to public rights-of-way, avoiding the costs of negotiating and renting land wherever they run their lines. Similarly with cable - they're given access to public rights of way and a monopoly position in exchange for being subject to regulation.

If any of them want to build out services entirely in the free market without making use of public resources, negotiating and paying for all access rights, then I'll support that service being unregulated.

You are, of course, correct not in any general sense. But feel free to enjoy your tiny semantic, pedantic victory. There are different forms of rights. There are natural ones, such as the right to self-defense embodied in the 2nd Amendment, and there are legally created ones, such as the right to ship products via motor carrier or the rights created by a contract.

Perhaps not a right, but there is a legal requirement that FedEx ship the product.

The US Congress, using its powers under the Commerce Clause, has created laws covering Interstate Commerce. Among those laws are ones defining motor carriers (49 U.S. Code section 13501), and requiring them to provide transportation "on reasonable request" (section 14101) according to tariffs which include the "rules, and practices" (section 13710). There is nothing in FedEx Ground's tariff which allow it to exclude the product in question, so they are legally required to ship it in accord with the published rates.

He's obviously part of that Anonymous group, and on the watch list.

But there are laws covering motor carriers, including FedEx Ground. My understanding (lawyers feel free to step in) is that they must carry goods per their tariff, which does not prohibit the equipment in question.

A carrier providing transportation or service subject to jurisdiction under chapter 135 shall provide the transportation or service on reasonable request. In addition, a motor carrier shall provide safe and adequate service, equipment, and facilities.

49 U.S. Code section 14101

" referring to metadata collection, that has been affirmed by a Supreme Court ruling that is 35 years old."

Uh, no.Smith v. Maryland was decided on two points.

First, the collection of very limited data which was specific to a single physical phone line, using a pen recorder which only captures a called phone number and time. The court placed significant weight on the limits of the data collected, saying:

"Indeed, a law enforcement official could not even determine from the use of a pen register whether a communication existed. These devices do not hear sound. They disclose only the telephone numbers that have been dialed - a means of establishing communication. Neither the purport of any communication between the caller and the recipient of the call, their identities, nor whether the call was even completed is disclosed by pen registers." United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 167 (1977). [442 U.S. 735, 742]

Given a pen register's limited capabilities, therefore, ...

-442 U.S. 735

and continues to base its reasoning on those limits.

The government tries to use that to justify collecting "metadata" which includes MUCH more information, and which is collected in bulk against a large number of citizens. Unlike the wired phones in play with Smith, cell phones are much more effectively linked to specific individuals.

Second, the decision depended upon "no reasonable expectation of privacy" for the numbers dialed. It was in the days of the old Bell System, which didn't promise customers any level of privacy. Most, if not all, modern cell carriers have explicit privacy policies, from which customers DO gain a reasonable expectation of privacy for any information they provide to the carrier.

Your claim that modern activities have been "affirmed by a 35 year old case" are false at best, otherwise ignorant or deliberately misleading.

You're a net newbie, aren't you. Domain squatters are scum. Right there with spammers and con artists.

It's all very confusing. Are we supposed to support the domain squatter or the con artist?

OK, if you say so.

"Are you suggesting that the vendor will double the amount of capital investment in their electronics..."

No, I wouldn't think of blaming the vendor, when the issue is obviously that you have neither the knowledge nor skillset needed to understand how to do VPN deployments.

That's a lengthy strawman argument. But you still fail, the cost of a router which can do an IPSec VPN is under $40.