[pappyone]

Yes, that is the way I understand it also. Fer instance, an ISP could charge CNN a hefty fee for “fast” delivery of their content. No problem for them, CNN generates much ad revenue. Whereas a site like FR with a relatively small click base could be charged less, and get “slow” delivery. I would foresee a long load time for FR sans net neutrality. What would happen if FR could not afford even the “slow” delivery rate? Don't want to contemplate that.

[antiRepublicrat]

Fer instance, an ISP could charge CNN a hefty fee for “fast” delivery of their content. No problem for them, CNN generates much ad revenue.

CNN already pays its commercial ISPs for the outgoing content (probably thousands of times more than FR pays) and the customers of the consumer ISPs already pay to receive that content. The consumer ISPs want payment from both ends. Any justification is BS, it's just greed.

I may start listening if they finally give me that 40 Mbps to the house they promised when the government gave them billions to do that in the 90s. Until then I assume they've been paid enough and shouldn't get any more concessions until they deliver.