"Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality." It was made after the Bittorrent blockin

"Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality." It was made after the Bittorrent blocking that dragonwriter referenced. The next thing they did was start throttling it and other high-bandwidth users. They were secretive about it, too. This was a problem in and of itself since there were content distribution businesses using BitTorrent. Having everything but their product running smoothly on a network makes them look incompetent. People might switch to vendors with steady performance that weren't being throttled. Consumer advocates argued it was bad since they sold us on a specific speed we could use as much as we like. If they wanted tiered access, they should be public about it and/or straight charge for it in their marketing materials. The debate continued. EDIT to Add: I think the reset packets should probably be mentioned as they're an active attack on users' connections. https://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-affair https://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-af... "They are still merely the distributor no matter how directly they censor you. " Ok. Change the word to distributor and my point stands. They control what content you can get if they can arbitrarily block things, inject stuff into your traffic, or seek rent from content suppliers. ISP's have done all these things. It's still puts them in control what content you can receive through a pipe no matter what word you call them.