Why does the list have to be hardcoded? Why not pull the records from DNSSEC... there's a whole specification for this, RFC6698

Again, Net Neutrality is a routing rule. Your router is either neutral or it isn't (and when it isn't, maybe in various degrees). It has nothing to do with the law per se. If I build my own router in my intranet that routes to i.e. give priority to my computer, then all other nodes, my router is no longer neutral; but that does not mean that it is "fraudulent" (I own the thing! It's obviously impossible to defraud myself).

Now when I sign up with my ISP, I expect that, absent other agreements, they won't care about where my packets are address to or from, just if I'm exceeding their bandwidth limit I agreed to - the only terms they mention that would result in packet loss.

If they end up dropping packets on some other mean, I'd call that fraud. But fraud is not for the FCC to enforce, and it has little to do with one ideology vs. another.

I really wasn't trying to get into Marxism, but as an armchair university professor, I would guess that a computer network is necessarily built of capital (i.e. nodes of routers and computers), and the alternative to prevent suppression of the working class would be collective ownership of the routers; with some arbitrary "equitable" and/or "fair" routing scheme, which I guess would look like Net Neutrality (and it is, so far as I can tell, a good routing principle).

Aside, Adam Smith also casually used Labor Theory of Value (lacking a better alternative to explain the relationship of costs to prices), the settlement on Marginal Theory of Value didn't come about until Carl Menger.

There's examples of rent-seeking and legal barriers to entry too numerous to list, but municipal networks would be an example of the latter. If I wanted to install a high-capacity line to houses, I'd have to compete with the taxpayer-funded installed lines - an artificial increase in costs (cost being the value of the next-best alternative).

I'm not sure what you're getting at; I think you mean to qualify "considering only Wikipedia/Facebook traffic, each being used equally, each should account for about 50% of packet drops", but that's not necessarily correct either, Facebook has much more streaming media than Wikipedia and would likely show considerably more packet loss.

I'm also not sure we want to go all-out on the "treat all data equally" idea militantly; what does that mean? If I pay for a dedicated pipe at a data center, I'm paying per Mbps, i.e. the rate above which they'll start dropping packets. What if I also want to pay for low latency because my company does low-latency telecommunications (i.e. please don't ever drop my packets, so long as I don't send too many of them), and I don't want to lay down the capital necessary to dig my own fiber darknet? Obviously this is okay, but your literal rule suggests otherwise.

Forged RST packets, captive portals, and injecting into webpages are wrong, they are fraud (i.e. slap them with a class-action lawsuit), but it's not a violation of Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality involves routing rules, period. (Use the respective terms: Forged packets and captive portals.)

The FCC might be proposing regulations around Net Neutrality; but the point of the article doesn't concern that, it's that FCC shouldn't be the packet police.

Net Neutrality is a rule that can apply to any node that routes packets; meaning pretty much all of them.

I appreciate the energy you're putting into Marxism vs. other labels, but that's really not the important point I'm making.

I'm not critiquing Marxism. You're just begging for an argument, aren't you?

That's what I said; I gave the technical definition. Go and look up how TCP negotiates connection speeds: By dropping packets.

[Citation Needed]

Wow, it sounds like someone woke up a little butthurt this morning. "Koch-backed astroturf group." So?

Let's examine this:

(1) Marxists do think Net Neutrality is a good idea. (This, of course, doesn't mean Net Neutrality is right or wrong by itself, it is a statement of fact. Marxists tend to agree with civil libertarians on quite a lot, if the intention is to portray the policy badly by negative association.)
(3) Net Neutrality means: Dropping packets (thereby manipulating congestion control and bandwidth negotiation) based on the source or destination of the packet. If you dropped a Wikipedia packet instead of a Facebook packet due to a policy configuration and nothing else (randomly due to too much load), that's a violation of Net Neutrality.
(2) The issue is not over Net Neutrality, but over classifying the Internet as a "public utility". I'm not sure what that's supposed to accomplish - by any standard, it's a common service that gets hooked up to houses, residences, similarly to electricity. But if the intention is to legislate how people are supposed to connect their computers to each other - I have a problem with that.

I'm all for fair routing and engineering solutions to problems, but do we really want the FCC being the packet police? This is the same entity that gave us the Broadcast Flag. Their only job is supposed to be to regulate and assign airwave space, not meddle in the affairs of private, voluntary connections between nodes in a computer network, Internet or otherwise.

And there are other Republicans who do believe in the scientific method, and that global warming is at least in part manmade, but think the $100B price tag to delay the effects by just a decade or two could be better spent elsewhere.

Seriously, when's the last time a climatologist actually did a cost-benefit analysis to the proposed solutions?

I can't speak for "freedom" because it's not well defined, but in the typical use meaning "liberty", GPLv3 is definitely less liberal than GPLv2.

Liberty is defined in terms of what one can legally (or violence, etc) compel someone else to do. It doesn't distinguish between audiences. If license A and B are identical except that licence A has some additional condition where I can file a lawsuit to get you to stop doing something, license A is necessarily less liberal, i.e. less free.

The FSF's notion of "free" is kind of backwards like this.

Military surplus makes such tyranny especially cheap, cheaper than it would otherwise be. Also something about the law of demand.

I seriously doubt there's "billions" of murders on the planet, let alone potential murders, regardless of the reason. Many participants in wars have been religious, and will preach their beliefs in the course of doing so, but of course this is statistically to be expected, do not confuse correlation with causation. In contrast, communism is directly responsible for somewhere in the vicinity of 100 million deaths (by execution as an enemy of the state, starvation due to artificial shortage, etc; WW2 by contrast is likely 2/3rds this number, including disease, fatigue, and diversion of resources and labor away from home).