Let’s say you have a household of 5 people with 20 devices in the LAN, one can be infected and running some bot, you do not want to block 5 people and 20 devices.

Why not, though? If a home network is misbehaving, whoever is maintaining that network needs to: 1) be aware that there’s something wrong, and 2) needs to fix it on their end. Most homes don’t have a Network Operations Center to contact, but throwing an error code in a web browser is often effective since someone in the household will notice. Unlike institutional users, home devices are not totally SOL when blocked, as they can be moved to use cellular networks or other WiFi networks.

At the root of the problem, NAT deprives the users behind it of agency: they’re all in the same barrel, and the maxim about bad apples will apply. You’re right that it gets even worse for CGNAT, but that’s more a reason to refuse all types of NAT and prefer end-to-end IPv6.

For reference, the letter written to the Governor of California is to invoke the provisions of Government Code 3612, which if used would cause an automatic 1 week cooling-off period so a Board of Investigation can convene and gather facts for the Governor. At that point, if the Governor concludes from those facts that significant transit disruption would occur, or there is a risk to public safety or welfare, the cooling off period can be extended by court order up to 60 days.

This proviso in law appears to have been added in 2012, as a trailer bill off the end of that year’s Budget, that reorganized some parts of the state government.

In a slight departure from the norm, the article’s title suits the article but the subheader is superfluous and unsupported. What on earth does pursuing advanced degrees have to do with railroad antitrust laws? The only color that this blurb adds to the article is the ugliest sort of “yellow”.

The subheader’s premise is wholly betrayed by the article’s final conclusion:

In doing so, the Court cited a Rule of Reason it first articulated in 1899—that large size and monopoly in themselves are not necessarily evil.

So yes, certain trust-like behavior can be worthy of “regulatory and judicial punishment”, because that’s exactly what the public policy demands. Does it depend on a lot of things? Of course! Most things do!

I bemoan articles that lean into an assumption that something is cut-and-dry, because that’s almost never the case, but here, whichever editor wrote that subheader did the author dirty. Because the article body is mostly fine, let down by bad editorship.