An Upcoming Challenge Against Adult Internet?
 

With porn being so popular for Internet surfers, and law-makers (apparently?)considering a move to give hi-speed cable/phone/etc companies the OK to charge surfers/customers to access porn sites, might this be the next big Radical Christian and/or government attack upon us? I think I saw Connor Young call it the "Net Neutrality" matter/issue?

If they try it, can we fight it based up it being selective burdening of Constitutionally-protected free speech, namely our sites???

We seem to often be targets of politicians, especially since "georgy" got elected:-(

YUK!

Comments?

Dave
:disgust

I think the government should focus on some real issues.

Wait I thought it was .xxx that was ending the industry last week... A new one already? :uhoh :1orglaugh

It's an interesting approach but seems problematic due to the long line of Supreme Court holdings re First Amendment 'content neutrality' issues.

If the government really wanted to crackdown on online porn, they would cripple it through an FTC 'content neutral' (wink wink) rule on automatic card rebills due to the high level of "risky" transactions online (yeah right, mmmkay). It won't kill online porn but it would sure make it scramble harder.

that's never going to happen.

I cant see it happening on a large scale. If a company blocked their own customers from accessing porn then the shit would hit the fan and they'd lose customers in droves.

I use Comcast and they have adult pay per view stations and make money off of adult, so they wouldnt block their customers from accessing it.

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.

Thanks!
 

Now I understand better--thanks!

It could indeed be a future problem:-(

Dave

That would be shocking.

Was just thinking about the history of the net "legalities" Dave. We got off with a fairly smooth ride most of the 90's and early 2000's when you consider net lawyers were waiting and warning of an administration coming along and invoking RICO and hell knows what else.

Only my experience, but seems that porn is one of the businesses prone to the ebb and flow of govts and public opinion - it's been the same for decades - and we are now seeing the tide flow in, this time, not so much from public opinion, but from an element within govt.

Tho issues may be decorated to appear otherwise, at the core it's a "quiet war" over "net neutrality" and coupled by a desire to control. Only my :2 cents: worth, but suspect this desire for control will increase over time, not just by govts, but also by those with dollar signs in their eyes.

Where in the fuck did you read this garbage. How does an ISP determine what a "porn website" is?

"Net Neutrality" doesn't have anything to do with porn. What that means is that ISPs have to provide the same bandwidth to all sites regardless of how much trafic the have. If they get rid of "Net Neutrality" then ISP can slow down traffic coming from any site they want until those sites pay the ISP for a faster access.

So for example Bellsouth can strike a deal with say Micrsoft and thus make Google and Yahoo come in unreasonably slow so people won't use those sites anymore for seacrh and isntead use MSN.

Or Comcast could strike a deal with FoxSports and make ESPN come in super slow.

Or an ISP could make ANY site that competes with them come in slow.

While they might be able to charge a higher price for a "faster" connection, generally speaking the current high speed connections we curently enjoy will be come free. Entire cities are setting free connections, and free wireless connections.

As part of my home owners association fees, my DSL connection is free.

They aren't going to be nailing us for an extra fee to hit porn sites, but instead role out a new service that is faster for which they will charge more for.

WRONG. That's not what this whole "Net Neutrality" thing is about. You're not goingto get FATSER service. Some of your favorite sites will becomes SLOWER until they pay the ISP an extortion fee. Sorry, but if I pay $40+ a month for a certain speed I expect that speed.

Also another issue for example companies like Charter and Comcast now have phone service. Well without "Net Neutrality"" laws they could and would slow down service those using Vonage and other VoIP services so that those customers will drop Vonage and use their VoIP srvice.

Not so, how much % of adult memberships are from married guys in a family.

If they cant view porn online they cant tell thier wife that we aer swtiching providers so that i can get my porn.

The internet provider that doesn't charge will be very popular!
Theater