But the move does not obviate the need for regulation.

What kind of regulation are we talking about here? I admit I don't see the benefit of an actual "network neutrality code" or the like.

Network neutrality is about not being subject to certain kinds of regulation because as a neutral carrier you aren't involved in the content being transmitted. Calling for the regulation of network neutrality is like calling for legislation to change common law, or paying salaries to amateur athletes. It's fundamentally oxymoronic and ultimately destroys the thing in question.

If we want ISPs to take net neutrality seriously, penalize all companies that are simultaneously involved in both transmission and in the production and management of content. If an ISP starts managing and altering its customers' data streams, it's now considered to be in both sectors and subject to penalty.

If you did it right, that would also help prevent vertical monopolies, too, which (Internet people will eventually discover) are bad. Even if we call them "synergies" now.

Might not have worked; Comcast was inspecting packets, not blanket-closing certain protocols.

Was it during the Reagan years that we decided monopolies were a great idea for capitalism? Or was it just during the last eight years? I would like to see competition for Comcast. I'd like to see the end of Rupert Murdock's gobbling up of newspapers and media outlets. Didn't we have regulations covering the consolidation of all wealth and power in a very few tightly clenched fists? This is not just an internet problem. It has far broader implications and needs to be looked at anew. This is what deregulation has wrought.

and cut Comcast out of the equation.