[SilasX]

I'm sorry -- this no longer feels like a productive discussion. I described two scenarios: a) one where the ISP deliberately throttles sites with views it dislikes, and b) another where everyone gets the normal speed but some may pay more for faster.

You claimed that any non-neutrality would permit a). I disagreed and gave an example of someone violating neutrality by doing b), where all views are still transmitted, but some have the option to pay for faster transmission.

In every reply, you changed the example back to a) and insisted you were quoting me. That is not responsive, and I cannot justify further engagement unless your replies can more narrowly address the scenario that I was actually talking about.

[ryandrake]

a) is the only example anyone is seriously worried about. I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks that Comcast or Verizon will make special pipes that are faster than what we have today and keep the "slow" pipes to match the speed we have today. Obviously they will instead call what we have today the "fast" pipes and will throttle (or block) everything else. I would bet my life on it.