FDA is the first one's department.

You know how laws were passed to REGULATE food companies to keep people from getting sick? The ones that say "Hey Meat Company, you can't take rotten meat, scrub it down with borax and sell it as "special" with a price premium anymore like you used to. Because that sucks."

Here the FDA is allowed to say: "Hey, internet company. You want to provide service, you provide it fairly to everybody, instead of using targeted restrictions on some people and companies just to try to fill your coffers with a little more money and censor out stuff you don't like."

It's REGULATION. And it's not a dirty word.

reason to have, -and pay for -high speed broadband is access to multimedia. If such access was removed, I can read my email just fine on dial-up. The ISPs are digging their own grave if they get involved with the copyright lawyers.

The FCC actually historically really likes vague terminology because it's they who want to feel powerful and make decision on their whim and mood, and be sucked up to in the hope they interpret things loosely, it's why their managers take the job, the powertrip.
So good luck with that EFF, haha bloody ha.
The whole reason the FCC talks neutrality is in a play to become the controller of the internet in the first place, you'd think the EFF would be familiar with all the BS and trickery.

You completely missunderstand what the law is intended to do, and what the EFF is arguing for. This appears to have caused you to go off on some tangent spewing BS.

"If the EFF pushes for regulation, they cannot take a principled stand against it."

Sure they can, because they aren't pushing for regulation at all. I herby douse your strawman argument in gasoline and set it a blaze.

It's embarrassing that the EFF is arguing for *more* Internet regulation. This kind of regulation should be an absolute last resort as it causes the United States to lose the high ground when other countries push for Internet regulation.

The next time China tries to use regulation to suppress Tibetan protesters or North Korea does the same, they will point to the fact that we also control by law what our ISPs carry.

Whatever the benefits of this law might be in the short term, the long term damage to our principled position of "use your network to carry whatever you want" will outweigh it.

And rest assured, the next time some horrible piece of Internet regulation is proposed, this will be cited as precedent. If the EFF pushes for regulation, they cannot take a principled stand against it.

"The terrible irony is that the loophole allows ISPs to violate the principles that the network neutrality regulations are supposed to be designed by the FCC to protect."

Lawyers spend a lot of time crafting these loophole clauses that completely subvert the stated purpose.

How many times must you see a pattern before you grasp that there's knowing intent behind it?

When billions are involved, details aren't left to chance.