Will the repeal of Net Neutrality block me from accessing ANY LEGAL website? These websites are small but VERY popular, and some contain adult content.

closed as off-topic by James K, Alexei, Glorfindel, bytebuster, Giter Jun 12 '18 at 11:59

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question does not appear to be about governments, policies and political processes within the scope defined in the help center." – James K, Alexei, Glorfindel, bytebuster, Giter
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    It could, but the most likely scenario (based on history) is that the ISPs try to blackmail sites into paying for not being throttled. – liftarn Jun 12 '18 at 9:34
  • @liftarn - actually, that's the least likely scenario. if you look at the actual data and not scaremongering, the only notable "blackmail" instance that happened wasn't that of a website but of a video streaming service (NetFlix) - and it was the only major case. – user4012 Jun 12 '18 at 19:12
  • @user4012 by that logic most websites are not websites. E.g. Stack Exchange is not a website, it's a question-and-answer service. – immibis Jun 13 '18 at 8:29
  • @immibis - if you have enough technical capability, measure the traffic used up by 1 hour of using Netflix vs 1 hour of using StackExchange. Come back when you understand the difference between "web" and "video" – user4012 Jun 13 '18 at 11:14
  • @user4012 pretty much every online business is also a website. Just because it's video streaming doesn't make it not a website. – immibis Jun 13 '18 at 12:01

NO ,

Net neutrality is not about blocking legal content on the internet. However your carrier may be able to charge you extra for accessing your small niche website, or charge the website something extra (and have the costs passed onto you) for providing the content. This may especially be the case if the website you're trying to access is data heavy (i.e. streaming/ downloading video)

  • 2
    To add: if the website would not accept paying extra these websites could have their download speeds reduced in an un-neutral net. – Communisty Jun 12 '18 at 6:53
  • I see. So if the owner of the websites wanted to avoid having to pay a fee, they would make US (the website consumer) to pay for them to stay up? Am I correct? And as for Communisty, if they decided to "opt-out" of paying the fee, they would just suffer a slower internet and download speed? I'm just asking to clarify I don't mean to sound like a smart mouth, ha. Looking forward to the clarification! – user21262 Jun 12 '18 at 7:37
  • @jugganath They could be slowed down or blocked entirely. I would also like to point out that you already pay for the data transferred between you and the website, so charging the website as well is double-billing. – immibis Jun 13 '18 at 8:30