No, it really just needs to be something in the middle. ISPs should not be able to discriminate based on endpoint or traffic type or protocol with the exception of E-911 and a few other specific and sensible exceptions. Spam and DDoS filtering, QoS for traffic types like VOIP that doesnt discriminate based on end point, or company. It's not really that hard. While a simple "everything should be equal based on X" rule wont work, it's equally absurd to think the law must be so complex as to impossible to craft. This fatalism from some ./ posters (not you) about the technical and legal wording being impossible is nonsense and not helpful. There is easily a middle ground here, and yes it requires some technical specifics, but it's NOT impossible

The problem is telcos are not producing content. Any plan that lets them set up as being able to charge based on the quality of content that they DONT produce, is tantamount to blessing rent seeking. They dont just hurt consumers, they hurt the whole ecosystem.

You mean regulate, right? There used to be a regulation the required telcos to sell their lines at wholesale to competitors but they removed that regulation so that telcos were as unregulated as cable companies (with regards to internet service).

The local monopolies these ISPs enjoy are not a regulation but rather a grant/partnership of various cities/towns/etc to the cable/telco operator as well as some natural monopolies due to the giants being the only ones with infrastructure. The kind of competition you are promoting is exactly what we need, but don't kid yourself that there are federal regulations that are creating these local monopolies.

Here's the difference: What are they investigating? They can't go trolling for wrong doing. They dont even imply what types of regulations or laws may have been broken.

It's "Don't be evil" and it's a tired tired joke at this point. Yes it's a silly corporate slogan and, yes, some of the stuff they do is considered evil by some people -- probably rightly so.

But I also don't believe that

-my world will be delivered by ATT
-Apple thinks differently
-UPS brown wants to know what they can do for me
-Diet Coke is just for the taste of it
-Verizon rules the air
-Mcdonalds will make me love it
-TBS is very funny
-Fox is fair and balanced
-Nike will make me just do it
-Or that Slashdot is only stuff that matters

We get it, time to move on.

Are you talking about Sarbanes -Oxley? Doesnt that apply more towards accounting records? Say Google wanted to delete its maps of the US, they wouldn't need permission for that. But if they wanted to delete expense reports they would.

I'd hazard a guess that another reason might be that those countries actually have privacy laws that could compel Google to turn over the information.

Like what? Can you give some examples?

The fact that his answer was so evasive is actually very telling. If they had a good reason to be looking at the data they'd have a warrant in hand.

Translation: we got nothing, so we're gonna try and invent some reason to get the data.

Destroying evidence while being investigated by the FCC/FTC is usually frowned upon. But I'm glad they are declining to hand it over for what you aptly called grandstanding. Honestly I think Google has handled it the best they can given the situation. Seeing politicians exploit the situation is beginning to irk me too though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/magazine/25internet-t.html

Has really taken on new meaning these days

Ah I see, thanks. Seems the real culprit here is iframes. Sometimes I wonder if they cause more harm than good. But really i guess it's hidden iframes causing the problem? Guess I'm just wondering what's the solution here. Should iframes send a limited header with just a domain name? Should they be removed? Are they really necessary? Or should there be a minimum size that can't be covered with other content or made visible? This is a pretty clever hack I'll have to admit.

Er, answering my own question -- it seems like it's quite difficult, but not impossible, to spoof the referrer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery

Can JS make an HTTP request without sending the referrer?