Except this is a reference to the provisions in the malicious communications act 2003.
Microsoft's "Surface" is just the latest round of their "tablet PC" debacle, which had been a continuous failure for over a decade before the iPad was introduced. iPad succeeded because Apple didn't try to shoehorn a desktop OS into a device where it clearly didn't fit.
To suggest that Apple should abandon a successful approach for a failed approach demonstrates that the author should find a different line of work, he's obviously out of his depth writing about the computer industry.
But then, you obviously didn't know that, given your basic misunderstanding of how QoS actually works.
Some concrete examples - it's federal law/regulation created using the Commerce Clause which (effectively) prevents the sale and ownership of automatic weapons. It's federal law/regulation which prevents the states from regulating radio frequency spectrum.
Netflix/torrents just as examples, I rarely max out my incoming bandwidth for other than short bursts. But perhaps someone wants to pay for minimal bandwidth (1 Mbps), but still get good Netflix (3 Mbps) and VoIP service. Providers should be able to pay for that additional bandwidth as part of a competitive offering. Similarly with QoS even inside the bandwidth I buy - I'd like my VoIP service to be able to have better QoS treatment, so a phone call doesn't degrade when someone else downloads a file. If all packets are treated equally, that's impossible.
The key, it seems to me, is to find some way to ensure that ISPs don't simply overprice bandwidth to the consumer in order to force providers to pay to deliver their content outside the subscribed bandwidth, and therefore gain a competitive advantage for their own offerings.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
If SCOTUS can claim that growing a garden for personal use is Interstate Commerce, then so to is an automobile company in one state selling cars in another.
But I somehow think his reasoning is more on par with "we don't like people protecting their rights, because it makes it harder for us to violate them."
So what? the point is that if we increase our usage to match the amount we have then we're not suddenly living in a world where there is an abundant supply, we'll just use more and have shortages just as much as always.
With that will be increased heat dissipation also resulting in another set of climate problems to that which we have now with CO2, unless we produce 100% efficient electronics, which isn't going to happen.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing though, I'm saying it's not going to be a magical panacea that lets us create a utopia. We'll still face similar problems to those which we face now, and we'll still have to deal with them.