[quote=mdk]
My understanding is that ISPs are going to be allowed to charge websites based on the traffic they generate (a cost that will ultimately get passed on to the end user, which sucks). It can certainly be characterized as 'Now Comcast gets to decide what websites it shows,' and that's a valid concern. I could also characterize it, just as accurately, as 'Now startup.com isn't paying the same price as YouTube to deliver its content.' Which is for the startups. Now, which is going to happen more? Easy -- the one we, as subscribers, support with our money. The only barrier (and it's a real one) is that some rural areas don't have great selection in ISP, so it's not a perfect competition and some of the shitty providers are going to have an advantage starting out, but ultimately this is a better answer. Maybe. Again, we'll have to wait and see.
[/quote]

Except, the opposite is likely to happen. If startup.com isn't paying Comcast, why should Comcast serve traffic to startup.com faster than YouTube? YouTube is paying for the privilege of faster traffic, so it will get preferential speed, versus startup.com which can't afford to be in the fast lane. 

Your example depends on ISPs tolerating websites [i]until[/i] they begin to incur more difficult performance for the ISP. However, you know as well as I do that corporations are greedy, why should startup.com get to hook into the Internet for free when YouTube has to pay? There would be nothing that stops ISPs (except the FCC's bluff, which you can't really count on to save the Internet anymore) from charging [i]both[/i] Startup.com and Youtube, and relegating anyone who couldn't pay to the frontage roads and pothole-filled streets of the Internet, rather than the speedy expressways.