1. Anonymous says:

    I am just waiting for those who know how to do these things to create a web page that can mimic how a non net neutral web site would work. Imagine a site were people can test drive a non net neutral web. For example..taking 10 minutes to load wikipedia but speeding along to an another corporate web site.

  2. Tim says:

    Perhaps someone could create a Firefox plugin that would do this, where you could edit a list of (relatively) “accelerated” and “slowed” websites.

  3. ethanthom says:

    How did we ever let net nutrality ever die.The internet monsters have enough money.Why must we pay them more.

  4. Anonymous says:

    The ‘Net is not neutral even now. I’m on dial-up, and I am unable to get or disallowed from getting some videos and some webpages.

  5. Sean says:

    This looks a lot like my T-Mobile T-Zones feature. Where I can get limited access to a “preferred” providers of weather, movie times, sports scores, etc. We can learn a lot by the limited Internet access provided to most mobile users.

  6. Anonymous says:

    This does already exist. Have a look at: http://x-series.drei.at/portal/de/x-series_kaufen/X-Series_kaufen.html and at http://www.three.co.uk/xseries/get_x_series/index.omp. It is possible to use the “included services” for free. For all the other services you have to pay.

  7. Mark Milliman says:

    C’mon David. Although this picture is funny, you know that it is not the intent. You are fueling the FUD over net neutrality. All packets are not created equal. I would like an Internet where my real-time and near real-time traffic received priority over someone searching for porn or passing along another stupid chain letter. Tell me you wouldn’t rather have a MOS of >4.2 for Skype or 8×8 for a couple of bucks extra a month.Right now the only choice of quality VoIP service we have is from the LEC or MSO that do it in their walled garden. Providing differentiated services would allow VoBB providers to compete effectively with the same carriers we are labeling as evil. This same example applies to video. Finally, we both know that throwing more bandwidth does not solve this problem. I frequently wax on about true net neutrality at http://blog.inphotonicsresearch.com.

  8. Anonymous says:

    “I’m on dial-up, and I am unable to get or disallowed from getting some videos and some webpages.” <– net neutrality primarily is when your provider 'chooses' what you should or should not be able to download. (Probably with a commercial motive) .. which is not quite the same

  9. Anonymous says:

    “net neutrality primarily is when your provider ‘chooses’ what you should or should not be able to download.”I believe you have it backwards.

  10. HOTI Dave says:

    Hi David, greetings from Hands Off the Internet.So here’s the thing — I don’t believe for a second you really think this picture actually shows what the Internet would look like if ISPs started offering QoS widely. Doesn’t approximate it, either.But people like the first Anonymous seem to believe it could take up to 10 minutes to visit Wikipedia, which is overwhelmingly text, and wouldn’t take very long to load even if not prioritized. And with Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-Verse coming online, even if it takes relatively longer to reach a non-prioritized site, it will still be absolutely faster to reach than it is now.If there’s one thing we can agree on, it’s that we need more broadband deployment, epecially in the last mile. However, we think we won’t get the investment we need if the net is regulated any more than it needs to be.