That's "ensure equal treatment of [LEGAL] packets of information". If those packets infringe copyright (or are suspected to) then they can be quenched.

Thus regulation of neutrality is actually the opposite. It's regulation of what information can be communicated, in exchange for lip service to a vague principle that legal communication shouldn't suffer unfair discrimination (the sort of 'unfairness' that allegedly arises in a free market).

The problem with the Economist's "To catch a thief" concerns its lack of perspective. That is that the content creators have been "seizing" ever greater "rights" thereby turning what was legal into a criminal action; then they disingenuously whine "theft". This leaves the casual reader with an unrealistic viewpoint of what is happening. One would hope that articles such as this would look into how copyright has been changing.

My concern with the Economists' "From ships to bits", again, is the lack of perspective. The mantra of our ISPs is "It will discourage innovation and investment in expensive new networks, ..." Is this true?

In following the net-neutrality debate I have read the comments/articles of others who have an international perspective. Based on their observations the US is behind many other countries. The question naturally arises as to WHY?

Unfortunately all that we seem to hear is the chest thumping mantra of "give us freedom" without any obligation. It seems that the freedom to innovate has not actually resulted in innovation. Clearly something is wrong with the approach taken in the US. So what are the other countries doing that allows them to be ahead of the US? I would like to read an article on that.