That article appears to be about the UK and censorship of copyrighted sites, I'll have to point out the contradiction of using this as argument against net neutrality because the flash point of this was Comcast disconnecting people from p2p networks which is the single biggest source of copyrighted materiel. In other words Comcast was censoring content. There reason for doing was because the people using p2p are clogging up the networks with a lot of activity to the detriment of other users. I'm sure pressure from the media companies played a role too.
You do realize that "Net Neutrality" is basically how traffic across networks is handled now? The basic premise of Net Neutrality is that the ISP is not going to give preference to traffic. For example if you use a service on Comcasts site it's not given priority over this one . The reason the ISP's want to break this long standing policy is so they monopolize the bandwidth for their own services or their "partners". They also have legitimate concerns about being able to control the usage of their networks so it isn't abused by a few people driving up the costs for others.
It's a complicated subject with very valid points from both sides, trying to box this into "it's government censorship" or a "Government takeover" is far from what many of the issues are. As I said before if the Government tries to cram any type of censorship under the guise of Net Neutrality or anything that resembles the fairness doctrine then they need to be called out on it. At this point it's about maintaining the status quo where all content providers like myself are given equal access to the customers of the ISP's which is the exact opposite of censorship.
I'm guessing you'll be happy when you have top rent the "Supra Deluxe Modem" for $10 a month to gain access to regular sites? That's the road we'll head down if the ISP's are allowed to break this long standing policy.
