You’re right about incentives to invest in infrastructure.
Nicholas Kellerhals

That wasn’t about blocking. At all. The only one on the list from your link that had to do with actually blocking content was Telus blocking a labor union, and that was in Canada, out of reach of the FCC.

Everything else was protocol slow-downs or blocking. BitTorrent is, in fact, an issue due to the way it works, and transmits a lot of illegal content. Note that the FCC rules, in every iteration, always prefaces the content that cannot be block as only applying to legal content. The most chilling part of that repeated language is that for an ISP to block illegal content, they must be able to actually sniff the content itself to determine its legality. The MPAA and RIAA, very successful lobbyists, will use this rule to demand that ISPs control the encryption on their network, sniff out “infringing” content, and block users. They already do this to some degree.

Note that the rules also talk about legal protocols.

And, yes, ISPs have attempted to block certain protocols on their networks, mostly wireless telephone networks, to increase revenue. Meanwhile, content providers are flooding bandwidth with video, JavaScript, and other techniques to deliver ads and increase their revenue. But, again, these rules ignore all of that. It also ignores the fact that it was actually Apple and Google that went along with much of that (stopping free tethering). Yet Apple and Google will benefit greatly from these government-imposed rules. Apple, by the way, has more cash that every ISP in the US combined.

Again, blocking content is just an imagined threat.

If you want to see real censorship, the list is going to be very long, and it’s all going to be perpetrated by the content providers themselves, not the ISPs. And I don’t have to go back 12 years to find really egregious examples.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.