<P> In 2011 Aparna Watal, a legal officer at an Internet company named Attomic Labs, has put forward three points for resisting any urge "to react legislatively to the apparent regulatory crisis". Firstly, "contrary to the general opinion, the Comcast decision does not uproot the Commission's authority to regulate ISPs . Section 201 (b) of the Act, which was cited as an argument by the Commission but not addressed by the Court on procedural grounds, could grant the Commission authority to regulate broadband Internet services where they render "charges, practices and regulations for, and in connection with" common carrier services unjust and unreasonable ." Secondly, she suggests, it is "undesirable and premature to legislatively mandate network neutrality or for the Commission to adopt a paternalistic approach on the issue...(as) there have been few overt incidents to date, and the costs of those incidents to consumers have been limited ." She cites "prompt media attention and public backlash" as effective policing tools to prevent ISPs from throttling traffic . She suggests that it "would be more prudent to consider introducing modest consumer protection rules, such as requiring ISPs to disclose their network management practices and to allow for consumers to switch ISPs inexpensively, rather than introducing network neutrality laws ." "While by regulating broadband services the commission is not directly regulating content and applications on the Internet", content will be affected by the reclassification . "The different layers of the Internet work in tandem with each other such that there is no possibility of throttling or improving one layer's performance without impacting the other layers...To let the Commission regulate broadband pipelines connecting to the Internet and disregard that it indirectly involves regulating the data that runs through them will lead to a complex, overlapping, and fractured regulatory landscape in the years to come ." </P> <P> As of 2006 the debate over "neutrality" did not yet capture some dimensions of the topic; for example, whether voice packets should get higher priority than packets carrying email or whether emergency services, mission - critical, or life - saving applications, such as tele - medicine, should get priority over spam . </P> <P> Cable companies have lobbied Congress for a federal preemption to ban states and municipalities from competing and thereby interfering with interstate commerce . However, there is current Supreme Court precedent for an exception to the Commerce Power of Congress for states as states going into business for their citizens . </P> <P> In 2006 it was proposed that neither municipal wireless nor other technological solutions such as encryption, onion routing, or time - shifting DVR would be sufficient to render possible discrimination moot . </P>

When does the end of net neutrality start