[pdabbadabba]

There's a lot not to like about the FCC's proposal, but one of its virtues is that it does include, as a guiding principle, "no blocking." http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet So, under whatever rules it comes up with, it seems quite unlikely that your assertion, "There is nothing preventing ISP gatekeepers from wholeheartedly denying access," will be true.

It is possible, of course, that this rule could corrode over time, or that the slow-lane might be so slow that it serves as a de-facto block. But I think we'll need to see the actual proposed rule before we can assess that risk realistically.

[ertdfgcb]

I think blocking might already be possible. Comcast is known for intermittent service problems, it would probably be pretty easy for them to give "intermittent service problems" to anyone trying to access a blocked site. They couldn't stop them from accessing it forever, but they could make it really really annoying.

[pdabbadabba]

That's true. But actually, on that score, it seems like the new rules are likely to be an improvement. (!!!) Now, if you think that Comcast is blocking content in the guise of "service problems," the most you can do, realistically, is call customer service. But if they do that with an explicit "no blocking" rule in place, they're just asking to get sued--either by a consumer, a state communications commission, or the FCC itself.

[ep103]

It doesn't matter if its no-blocking, if they allow their current service to degrade to the point that it is unusable. That's exactly the same as blocking for everything, except a few specific services that paid for the 'fast lane'. And its already happening

http://bgr.com/2014/05/06/comcast-internet-service-criticism...

[pdabbadabba]

I don't think the FCC is so stupid as to not catch on that this constitutes "blocking." But only time (and seeing the actual rules) will tell.