An interesting article in The Denver Post touching on pros and cons of net neutrality. There was one point in particular about unlawful content. There seemed to be agreement amongst the panelist interviewed by The Post about blocking unlawful content. It would seem to me that in order to make a determination whether content is unlawful that packets of digitized information would have to be inspected somehow.
How this would be done is above my pay grade but I have to wonder if net neutrality advocates have taken this into consideration. If they are so hyped on applying Title II, common carrier regulations to broadband Internet access, then this is a price that the card carrying ACLU types among them may have to pay.
Section 230 of the Communications Act grants broad immunity to Internet intermediaries such as Internet service providers and content hosting sites, from liability where these intermediaries take good faith actions to restrict access to or availability of objectionable online content posted by third parties.
Question is, how can broadband access providers play a role in restricting access to child pornography content when net neutrality says allow all content to flow freely and equally?
Flip the script this way. To equalize the treatment of objectionable content traffic with other legal content, slowing down all traffic on the Internet so that all traffic is inspected may be required.
That screeching sound you hear is the Internet coming to a halt.