Does the lighting law include the energy used to make and dispose of the product?

The rules were in place. The monopolies were traded for certain standards of service and public service when regulation first went into place. AT&T was happy to be regulated and block out local competitors. The (partial) deregulation of telcos and cable companies was a windfall to these companies. What did we get for it? A pocketful of mumbles -- empty promise from the telcos that we would all have fiber to the door by now.

The results of ignoring problems have been even messier in the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries. Government is hardly ever a perfect solution, but it often has done a good job of cleaning up messes that private enterprise has created. Since the major players in internet service provision have all sucked at the teat of government from time to time and are in dominant positions because of that, there's no reason to worry that government regulation that forbids discrimination by private enterprises is going to be a burden on free enterprise.

Remember that the companies that are whining about this are companies that have a long history of government support to allow them to lay the copper, cable or fiber. From the day that Alexander Graham Bell won a questionable patent, telephony, cable and internet have always relied on government help to get what they wanted. Minor levels of regulation are not oppression, nor would they interfere with the companies' abilities to exploit the market. Until the providers show that they are being hurt by net neutrality, they need to offer it.

"Your car has to be registered and insured, and you have to follow a long list of rules while driving."

Hold on a second there. You don't have to have your car registered or insured or follow any laws if you're on private property. You're free to do whatever the fuck you want in private. But when you bring your car onto PUBLIC roads, you don't have the same rights. That road isn't yours, it's the taxpayers'.

The sale of explosives is quite regulated, presently, as is the sale of firearms in many states. But consider what you are really saying when you support denying firearms & explosives to people on a "terrorist watch list." They are only on that list by the fiat of some federal bureaucrat or someone in the executive branch. Like the people on the No Fly list. These are people against whom there is insufficient evidence to make a criminal case, so instead they are extra-judicially punished. That's how crazy it's gotten.

The other problem with your post is that if you resent expansion of second amendment rights (it's not originalist! The Founders meant militia!)--and they have only been expanded to the point that it is unconstitutional to ban firearms outright or require them to be inoperable--then how do you feel about the heavy reinterpretation of the fourth, fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments that occurred during the civil rights era? It would be difficult to argue that the original intent of the constitution assumed the inherent coerciveness of custodial interrogation (of course, Miranda may be on a path to be reinterpreted back into oblivion), or that the fourteenth amendment originally precluded segregation (or, hypothetically, allowed gay marriage). The originalist argument for expansion of the second amendment is likely stronger than in many of those other cases.

Your argument amounts to "I resent the expansion of the amendments that I don't like," and "I resent giving equal rights to people that I don't like."

These are medical devices. There are ways to control costs, but hacking something up may not be a good idea given that QC is often the last item on the to do list.