> I don't understand how it is unenforceable and unmeasurable. We already know certain ISPs do it today and we can test for it.

Awesome. Then put up a website with your reports and make your case to convince people to switch to better ISPs. Why do you need the Gun of the State to do that for you?

> And the FCC can enforce it like it enforces everything else: fining.

A fine is not a deterrent, it is a disincentive. A disincentive is combined with other forces that a corporation takes into account when choosing how to act. For instance, the FCC has a "ban" on cursing on TV, but you may still choose to do so and pay the fine. So it is not a deterrent. Not to mention it is condescending (and this has real implications in society, as it discourages people from thinking by themselves) that the FCC thinks they can decide for me what I should and shouldn't be exposed to.

> You might as well say we might as well allow everyone to use all wireless spectrum however they feel, because forcing them to use certain bands for certain types of information is "unenforceable and unmeasurable". Testing that is also hard, yet we still have rules and we still fine people for it.

And you think the only way to sensibly share the wireless spectrum is by giving the government a monopoly over the sky and letting them force people to use it in a certain way? First of all this is a terrible idea on moral grounds. There's no incentive for the government not to abuse this power in the form of censorship or cronyism by benefiting a broadcasting company that will provide funds for a presidential government and so on. So many bad scenarios derive from giving this monopoly to a gang with a license to kill (a few more: it discourages innovation, it raises the barrier to entry, it raises prices unnecessarily (money that would be otherwise usefully applied elsewhere), and it places communication in the hands of unregulated regulators). FCC was not always the way, and radio waves have not always been regulated, and people did just fine. Something else to blame Hoover for (he also thought, like you, that the government needs the FCC to "prevent interference" among users of these bands). I would apply the principle of homesteading to frequency bands as it seems to me (I haven't done much reading on this) to be the same problem as the allocation of land problem.

And arguing "yet we still have rules and we still fine people for it" does not address my points. This is just a status quo fact, not an argument.

> First, it's a corporation, not "someone". Secondly, if you wish to do business in most civilized areas, there are certain rules you must abide by. A good example is "forcing" a company to not dump toxic waste in river. Some things are done for the common good of all, and one of the things governments are supposed to do is balance that with interests of the few. Just like how dumping waste in rivers is against the law, so too could the government force ISPs to be a common carrier.

But the government you deem necessary has turned corporations into people, so it is someone, because a corporation can only lose as much money as it has in its coffers and the people hiding behind the government's license to incorporate cannot be held responsible for what "the corporation" does. So it is someone, unfortunately.

Then you make a fallacious status quo argument - "most areas have rules". So what? I'm arguing those rules are immoral and you're not addressing my point.

You're also mistaken if you think the only way to enforce non-pollution is through rules and fines. Again, those are disincentives, not deterrents. It works better if you create positive incentives not to pollute in the first place. This is a huge topic and I'm already over-extending myself, so I'll stop here.

I disagree with several of your premises: that governments are supposed to be concerned about the "common good" (whatever they decide is the most profitable definition thereof), that dumping waste in rivers should be illegal (who decides what "waste" is? how does fining after-the-fact help keep rivers clean? what is the incentive to keep clean something no one owns?). So I don't think you're making a strong case.

> Given the incredibly high cost of entry into this business

It is only high because the government skews the market by regulating it. There's demand for higher speed, lower priced internet than what the current monopolies offer. But you think this is an insurmountable problem that the entrepreneurs will never be able to solve? That's just it, we know for sure it's expensive to open up your own ISP, therefore let's make that illegal? I believe more in people and their ingenuity to come up with solutions to even problems that were once (or are now) deemed impossible, or as you put it, "insanely expensive".