Originally Posted by coolegg2

If I understand the issue, it's not so much the risk of whole-scale censoring of the net by the major ISPs, but rather selective channelling of sites - soft censorship - based on whether they have paid the ISP a fee for access to "the fast lane". So sites that pay, say 10% of their sales, to the big ISPs/backbone providers show up fast to all US surfers - the others show up slow or possibly not at all.

Basically the ISPs are pissed off that membership-based porn sites have such a high profit margin compared to their own slim margins, or so they say.

What doesn't add up, is why don't the ISPs and backbone providers just charge more to hosting companies, which in turn will get passed on to site operators? The approach the ISPs want to take suggests that the issue is not just profit margins but that they want to control content too - which in the long run will be worth MUCH, MUCH more to them that just charging more for bandwidth at the server level.

We should be afraid. Five years from now a site might pay hosting fees, 13% to CCBill, and another 20% to the big ISPs for "premium access" - or not be offered premium access to surfers at all if your product competes with a large company that has a relationship with the big ISPs. And say goodbye to any sites that criticize the Republican Party.