> Well it is a little premature to cry doom before these guidelines are even adopted.

It might not be before they are adopted, but it is before they are proposed and, particularly, before the news stories based on inside leaks are even consistent about what the rules are in the area of concern.

EDIT: Not sure why the downvotes, but as I point out in another comment on the thread (with links to sourcs), there are at least three conflicting characterizations of what the new rules that the FCC chair is about to begin circulating and that the FCC might then propose with a public comment period will do on the point in question:

1. (NY Times): Allow ISPs to (apparently, with no signficant restrictions) negotiate per-content-provider rates for enhanced access to the ISPs users.

2. (WS Journal): Allow ISPs to offer enhanced access if the terms are commercially reasonable and open to all content providers.

3. (Reuters): Not address ISP-to-content-provider agreements at all.

My point is that its premature to react to the details of the rules when there isn't any consistent picture of what those details are likely to be.

I don't really get the downvotes either, although it took me two readings of your comment to understand what you were saying.

FWIW, here's what the FCC has actually published so far:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-chairman-tom-wheel...

Unfortunately it doesn't actually say much.

> I don't really get the downvotes either

A user went haywire and downvoted a whole bunch of comments. We've corrected the damage, although users had already corrected much of it.

All: when you notice substantive, civil comments that are unfairly faded out, please give them a corrective upvote. This is a longstanding community practice. It usually only takes one or two corrective votes to get a good comment back to par, so every user can make a significant difference.