The ISP can discriminate on whatever basis they want – agreed. As long as they own the data line from end to end.

Clearly they do not own the line in entirety. The end user owns the segment going into his home, telecoms own their segment, a website is served and owned by yet others. There are multiple owners spanning multiple continents. Typically ISPs do not own any part of the line, they usually lease capacity from a national telecom. They are just one link in a long chain.

The ISPs are usually happy to be neutral in that they cannot be blamed for anything that traverses the data line. If child porn is being transferred over their service, they have zero responsibility to stop it. If crucial medical data is being transmitted, they do not have to speed or facilitate it.

Like you, I favor minimum government. Neutrality is the simplest option that involves least government. All other options require more regulation and more work. I’ve seen this first hand with ISPs in Qatar and Kuwait that need to hire staff to screen adult and un-Islamic content so that it can be fire-walled. This is direct result of govt regulation. If they were given the freedom to be net neutral, they would immediately opt for it.

As I said in the original article, in a voluntary contract the ISP Can have any ‘terms and conditions’ including not transmitting data with porn content or BBC content. If consumers don’t like that condition then they can buy some other company’s connection which doesn’t have such condition. Discrimination is essential feature of market process. No one has any right to force the ISP not to discriminate on whatever basis they want to. What people should demand is not state enforced ‘net neutrality’ (state intervention) but opening up of the internet market for more competition and companies; That will give us more choice. Allowing government to control internet will result into more tyranny.