Isn't use of the internet to facilitate crimes commonly cited as a reason for federal prosecution, on the grounds that all internet communications involve interstate commerce?

Wire Fraud

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...

No, not that I am aware of. I'm not an expert on the topic, but it is my understanding that the majority of prosecuted crimes involving the Internet in the US are prosecuted in State courts, not Federal.

I wouldn't call myself an expert on this topic, but I think you're severely missing the point: virtually any case involving use of the internet can be federalized under the interstate commerce doctrine.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48764

Everything can be federwlized under the interstate commerce doctrine. There was a case where a farmer grew his own plants (wheat, I think) to feed himself and his animals, in contravention of federal quotas. It was ruled the federal government has authority because growing wheat affects the wheat market, even if the wheat is never sold and never leaves the state.

That would be strange because not all Internet communications involve interstate commerce.

Just because it is strange doesn't mean it isn't true

I agree, which is why I said it’s strange instead of saying it isn’t true.

They absolutely do, because packets regularly bounce across state boundaries even if I am just sending a message to my next door neighbor. For example, my phone service provider is headquartered in a different state, so using their network to send an SMS message automatically creates an interstate nexus. If a US attorney wants to take over a case for reasons of professional or political advancement the argument is trivially easy to make.

Packets regularly crossing state lines doesn’t mean they always cross state lines.

Good luck representing yourself in federal court.

Weird take but ok. I understand the assumptions of the law don't always reflect reality. Why would I defend myself?

You claim that packets always cross state lines because sometimes they cross state lines. That's not a logically consistent statement.

From the dissent in Gonzales v. Raich:

> Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Much like the SEC is the meta-regulator par excellence as humorously documented as 'everything is securities fraud' by Matt Levine, the Interstate Commerce clause is the hat from which all rabbits and powers of legislation of the Federal Government gets pulled from nowadays, for what does not touch upon interstate commerce in an economy such as ours?