Who warned us this was coming?

A federal appeals court has struck down Federal Communications Commission rules that prohibit Internet service providers (ISPs) from restricting access to legal Web content.

The ruling is the latest development in the long-running battle over net neutrality -- the principle that all sites on the Internet be equally accessible. Net neutrality advocates want to preserve the Web's status quo, in which providers such as Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500) and Time Warner Cable (TWC, Fortune 500) can't auction off priority traffic rights to one site over another, or impose tolls for high-bandwidth sites such as video streamers Netflix (NFLX) and Hulu.

Netflix, Hulu and the rest can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. They're expecting another industry (Internet carriers) to build and pay for their product delivery pipeline. Sort of like Ford telling GM's trucking fleet that it has to deliver Fords too. That's just wrong, I don't care whose name you put on it. I will cry no tears for their demise.
More importantly, it would be quite possible and legal for a carrier to block content that it disagrees with, or that the government has pressured them into disagreeing with.

Suppose the LSoS decides that he doesn't like so many conservative web forums who are critical of his policies. What's to stop him from "convincing" broadband carriers that they really don't like that content?

Annoyed wrote:

Netflix, Hulu and the rest can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. They're expecting another industry (Internet carriers) to build and pay for their product delivery pipeline. Sort of like Ford telling GM's trucking fleet that it has to deliver Fords too. That's just wrong, I don't care whose name you put on it. I will cry no tears for their demise.
More importantly, it would be quite possible and legal for a carrier to block content that it disagrees with, or that the government has pressured them into disagreeing with.

Suppose the LSoS decides that he doesn't like so many conservative web forums who are critical of his policies. What's to stop him from "convincing" broadband carriers that they really don't like that content?

No, actually it's more like the road commission telling Ford owners they aren't allowed to drive on their roads they have to go build their own. I, as in MYSELF, pay exorbitant fees for internet access and if I want to watch Netflix I'd damn well better be able too.

As far as the rest of what you wrote... did you get it backwards? You seem to be arguing that blocking content would be wrong, but the whole point of the post is that rules to stop that behavior have been struck down. Without the FCC rules, ISP's are now free to restrict, ban and impose extra fees on whatever they want.

eber322 wrote:

Annoyed wrote:

Netflix, Hulu and the rest can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. They're expecting another industry (Internet carriers) to build and pay for their product delivery pipeline. Sort of like Ford telling GM's trucking fleet that it has to deliver Fords too. That's just wrong, I don't care whose name you put on it. I will cry no tears for their demise.
More importantly, it would be quite possible and legal for a carrier to block content that it disagrees with, or that the government has pressured them into disagreeing with.

Suppose the LSoS decides that he doesn't like so many conservative web forums who are critical of his policies. What's to stop him from "convincing" broadband carriers that they really don't like that content?

No, actually it's more like the road commission telling Ford owners they aren't allowed to drive on their roads they have to go build their own. I, as in MYSELF, pay exorbitant fees for internet access and if I want to watch Netflix I'd damn well better be able too.

As far as the rest of what you wrote... did you get it backwards? You seem to be arguing that blocking content would be wrong, but the whole point of the post is that rules to stop that behavior have been struck down. Without the FCC rules, ISP's are now free to restrict, ban and impose extra fees on whatever they want.

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding Netflix etc.. if you like, I can do a post outlining my logic there..

But more importantly. this change does make it legal for carriers to give preferential treatment to different traffic.

The govt. (both parties) has been trying establish a precedent for content control on the 'net for a very long time now, under various guises. Usually, "to protect the children" is their banner.

But it's not hard to imagine a carrier being pressured by a government (R or D) to block traffic detrimental to that government's desires.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven, but the government censorship potential is the most serious aspect of it.