Exactly. That fact that they use the term 'unreasonable' speaks volumes. The point of net neutrality is that bandwidth is service agnostic for the great value to society that such an approach provides. Any preferential appropriation and throttling of bandwidth is unreasonable because capital is not the determinant by which we want to value what passes on those networks. Money is something that is associated with value, but its success as a proxy for value varies greatly. Sometimes supply and demand economics encourages behavior that you want to avoid. The value of net neutrality is akin to the value of basic research: you cannot get return without an investment, but the specific appropriation of that investment will guarantee less return when compared to a general funding approach. This is because the best return on investment comes from supporting a competitive ecosystem from the outside. We cannot pick the most valuable evolution of the ecosystem and simply fund that path, because it is unknowable. What is the functional difference between State-owned monopolies and monopolies that own the State?The agency promised that after it hears public comments over the summer, it will come up with more specific guidelines on what it views as “unreasonable” practices by Internet service providers.