What has people worried is that the network providers have already been messing with their level of service. There have been suits over the blocking of VOIP packets. My cell provider limits my Web access to just a handful of websites and the services these web sites provide are terribly degraded from what I could get on the open Web. Then there is the old story of how MS killed DR-DOS. The network owners could easily follow a similar strategy.
>I doubt that the FCC would allow a network provider to simply NOT load a >site, but a network owner could certainly delay the loading of a Web page. > The discrimination could blatant, e.g., a pop-up suggesting an >alternate/preferred Web site. It could be overt (but not as blatant), >e.g., a warning stating that the site you requested does not have premium >service and that delayed page loading is to be expected. Or, the >discrimination could be hidden: simply a delay in loading the Web page >without any notice or warning. ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************
