Prior art, right here. I've got the idea of a "mobile 3D printing drone."

You made a claim which you're unable to support. As others have pointed out, its demonstrably false. Continuing to defend it makes you a liar. Continuing to hurl insults doesn't change that a bit.

If I had TMo, could I sign up my own Subsonic streaming service, and access it for free?

I believe there's room for more nuance in net neutrality rules. As long as a transport provider isn't interfering with any content which is within the contracted bandwidth/allowance, there should be room to offer premium transport above and beyond.

One example might be a customer who only desires a low level of Internet access for email and light web browsing, but also wants a video streaming service. They should have the opportunity to contract for a low cost basic service, and have the streaming service pay for bandwidth above that basic service (they would pay for it indirectly via the streaming provider). Or, there might be a desire for preferred QoS treatment to support VoIP or other latency/jitter sensitive streams.

The problem is how then to ensure that ISPs don't simply skew the market with pricing - $10/mo to the customer for 64 kbps of basic service (+ provider paid bursting), but $300/mo if a customer wants 100 Mbps service as a means to push costs onto content providers which compete with the ISPs own offerings.

A bona-fide separation of content and transport providers might be a solution, where the traffic is tariffed to prevent an ISP from giving preferential pricing to a closely affiliated content provider.

But, as a first cut, requiring all traffic to be treated equally is a good start. And I think I agree that TMo should be forced to count streaming data toward the customer's allowance. But, what then happens with VoLTE, where everything is data and calls should also count in the allowance? Why should TMo be able to offer free calls, when the customer pays more for Skype or SIP ones? No more "nationwide free calling?" I don't see consumers accepting that change.

Part of the problem comes from how transport is billed - consumers basically pay for received data, and ISPs want to charge content providers for sent data, double dipping for the same traffic.

(also, Karmashock was quite wrong in claiming that the rules would forbid TMo from delivering streaming music, and that was the basis for the rest of his argument)

I'm merely offering you the opportunity to show that you're not the liar which you have so far demonstrated yourself to be. If you choose to leave your provably false statement uncorrected, you have only yourself to blame.

Even if the rules say the T-Mobile service must count toward data allowances, that would not prevent them from offering a music service on competitive terms. His claim, which was clearly made from whole cloth and therefore unsupportable, was that the rules would forbid T-Mobile and others from streaming music.

Ah, so you not only don't understand normative citations, but you can't provide one. Not surprising for someone who feels a need to switch to insults when they're shown to be wrong.

The distinction is not particularly subtle. It is the difference between content (the Internet) and transport (the network). The FCC is regulating the transport, so that providers which offer both transport and content do not receive an unfair advantage over those who provide only content.

"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.