What, exactly, do you think these regulations should be? What kind of regulation would solve this problem?

E.g. contrast with, say, regulation of pharmaceuticals by the FDA. Certainly a curb on private property rights, but, its also pretty clear what the regulations should do: allow companies to sell only drugs which have been proven to be both safe and effective.

Is there such a very clear idea of how these proposed regulations should be written? Where do we draw the line? Does anybody really have a very clear idea let all what the solution would look like?

This sort of questioning just supports maintaining the status quo even if that benefits nobody.

I don't know what the regulations should be but that doesn't mean regulations shouldn't exist. Businesses are under perhaps thousands of regulations and I can only name a few. How many can you name? What problems do those regulations solve? Do you think they shouldn't exist as well?

// This sort of questioning // chuckle Surely you are not trying to suppress my right to ask questions? :-) We are all frustrated here and know things have got to change somehow. It's just not exactly obvious how, not to me anyways.

But suppose we actually did have a concrete proposal, something we could legislate. No matter what the legislation was, there would still be media winners and media losers. And the media losers would still feel they are being systematically excluded.

Here's the kicker--they would be absolutely right!! Moreover, they wouldn't have to appeal to vague dissatisfactions about "corporate abuses"--they could point to specific line items of regulations which had the effect of suppressing their speech. There would be endless, highly politicized fights about what the regulations should be, but no matter what they were, the regulations would inevitably have the effect of promoting some points of view and suppressing others.

I.E. I really don't how regulations could provide any sort of solution to this problem.

Winners and losers exist now -- it's just that whatever is the status quo is the assumed baseline. It's just how humans view things but it's not logical.

I don't really think this is as complicated as you're making it in this case. The regulation should be that ISPs are to simply pass along data that comes their way. If they fail to do that by impeding certain traffic, they should be fined or in egregious cases jailed. No different from how you'd fine or jail something like a restaurant owner for violating health codes. You would expect a restaurant to serve you clean, un-tampered food; likewise, you should be able to expect your ISP to serve you data and to not tamper with it.