Apparently Cox didn’t get the memo, as users that install security software from a company called Authentium it provides them haven’t been able to access Craigslist for several months.

In any case, the idea of internet providers actually blocking sites completely is pretty slim — they’ll just use traffic shaping or other technologies to throttle them to the point that they’re useless.

that makes one wonder though…if this has been going on for several months and as you say the idea of internet providers actually blocking sites completely is pretty slim dont you think they would have fixed this issue by now? maybe, released a patch or a workaround or something along those lines, instead of just keeping quiet and not doing anything to resolve the issue. no action on the part of cox for several months does make it seem as if they are doing it on purpose.

With out going into the politics of “Net Neutrality”, it is worth noting some basics:

1. Carriers sell me my 3mbps DSL and Sell my target site its 155Mbps (or whatever), so in theory, its all paid. However, in reality the business model assumes I will *on average* use much less than 3Mbps, and in a way the carrier sells the same bandwidth multiple times.

2. To be able to meet an agreed (or acceptable) level

of service, the amount of “overbooking” is limited, and

sensitive to the nature oif the traffic involved. So if I

raise my average consumption and “really” try to use

the 3Mbps I think I paid for all the time, the carrier

has to do less overbooking. In other words, in such a

case, It is more expensive for the carrier to stand up

to the promised service I am getting.

3. So – what to do? Raise consumer price to account for

my higher-than-expected consumption, even tough

it is within my already-promised 3Mbps? hard. So –

4. Caririer wants to raise the price of the target sites

that “cause” this more-than-expected average

5. Also (carrier says), these target sites make lots

of money, and the price per Mbps they pay is the

same as less heavy users – they can afford it, let

them pay.

6. So, in my mind, this is not a sinister lets-block-sites

play (tough it may become so someday). This is more

about trying to charge as much as possible. Since

everyone buys the same thing – Bps – it LOOKS

better to charge more if I claim there are Classes of

bits, each with a different price

So, as the average site becomes more multi-media heavy, and the average consumption rises on this conversation, this directly impacts the carrier’s traffic model, and if forced to live up to some agreed SLA, more Bandwith must be given to me