Would you object to an ISP model where a content provider could pay to get an ISP subscriber's package upgraded on a dynamic basis?
Yes... Because the reality is that it wouldn't be an upgrade. It would be a euphemism for downgrading the subscriber's experience with other content providers.
A lot of people hear the term "quality of service" and think that it refers to some mechanism that makes some packets go faster like a JATO rocket pack made late 40's, early 50's airplanes go faster. But that is not how the mechanism works. QOS mechanisms are based on making some packets go slower, either by delaying them or deleting them so that they have to be resent. This creates the illusion of speed for the remaining untouched packets if the QOS is successful in preventing congestion at network bottlenecks. QOS does not always prevent congestion; it just reduces the likelihood that congestion will occur. If the delayed/deleted packets belong to the same organization as the so-called boosted packets, then this works OK because this organization will have reasons for preferring that certain packets be delayed/deleted. The problem begins when the delayed/deleted packets belong to a different organization than the boosted ones. That is not net neutrality even if the packets have different diffserv markings. It is even worse when the network operator selectively remarks packets from one organization to cause them to be delayed/deleted. In this second scenario both organizations inject packets into the network with the same IETF diffserv markings but another network operator degrades the service for one organization. --Michael Dillon