Yes that's how it'll work. More importantly, the ISP can slow down connections to content that it finds objectionable. And I'm not talking about porn. An ISP that's owned by a rabid radical leftwinger could slow to a crawl traffic that comes from a site devoted to right-wing blogging, for example. That's the real worry.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Exactly. How I understand it....shortski wrote:This is the part I'm refering to;XtremeJibber2001 wrote:I'm under the impression that it's not going to slow your connect.shortski wrote:Why do we need a law for this, if I'm paying let's say comcast for Internet service and I want to view content, say a video from Verizon, if they slow down my connection I'm going to switch providers and go to someone who dosen't screw with he service I'm paying for, consumer demand will drive business to the providers that don't slow the service they're paying for. Am I missing something?XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Democrats doing something right!
For example, if you're going to download a video from googles site...verizon (the ISP) will get to charge google for bandwidth use.
"While the House bill endorses general net neutrality goals, the Senate bill would only instruct the FCC to study whether a net neutrality law is needed. Net neutrality advocates said the Senate bill fails to protect U.S. consumers against broadband providers that want to block or slow competing content or services."
Let's say 80% of Verizon ISP users download videos from videos.google.com, Verizon could inturn slow the end users connection to that content because it uses more of the ISP's bandwidth then say jabber.com *OR* the ISP can say to google.com that they use "x" amount of the ISP's bandwidth so they must pay the ISP "x" amount of dollars to retain the bandwidth they currently have.
The above legislature proposed by Democrats would put a stop to this. The first article outlines what the ISP's want to do to certain sites.
At least this is what I gather is happening.
btw, you may find Save the Internet interesting.