I can totally imagine companies being stupid and greedy enough to try and pull this kind of stunt. But I can't imagine it working - as long as people kick up enough fuss when they actually try it. The second my ISP tries this kind of BS, I will jump ship and I will very loudly tell them exactly why they've lost my business. I'll pay money for a university dialup account if necessary - it'd be more useful than some "major popular sites only" crap anyway.
Heck, if there's really going to be a story in Time on this, it'll probably raise enough backlash to kill the idea before they even roll it out.
I think the problem is that the backlash wont happen because too much of the public doesn't know how the hell the internet works, and its not like anyone in the government knows either (speaking from an American's point of view, series of tubes, etc.) I'm hoping for the best, but at the same time I'm not expecting it.
This is true, and it's a risk. But this would break a sane internet experience for even a total interweb newbie. I mean, imagine all the email forwards that hotlink random lolcat images or inspirational sunsets suddenly failing to load.
But, yeah, if I see any further signs of this being a reality, I'd totally voice my complaints about it.
As a parallel, look at what's happening in Canada with the gov't trying to roll out a new DMCA-inspired copyright law. There is a LOT of crap supposedly in the works in there ... but the part that makes the news is the $500 fine for illegal music downloads. Frankly there is a lot worse rumored to be coming up in the bill than download fines, but if that's what gets the public riled up enough to stall the bill then so be it.
That $500 fine seems to be an improvement compared to the astronomical sums some music companies claim in court.
Player
