On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:31:08 PST, John Musbach said:
I myself and I'm sure most others prefer net neutrality to the horrid alternative you're suggesting
I dunno. I've often wished I *could* QoS some of my packets up/down so the Linux distro ISO I'm downloading doesn't make my SSH get piggy, and I'd certainly at least *consider* a provider that offered "NNN gig/month of priority traffic, and unlimited scavenger-class" or similar ideas I've seen proposed. I'd even be OK with the provider QoS'ing the packets because the *other* end of the connection did it (hey, you host a distro mirror, you want to save those bandwidth charges, I can understand and will show solidarity by playing along). It's only when my packets get QoS'ed downward because some *third party* paid the provider that it gets ugly and evil. (And yes, I know there's the nasty corner cases where I'm sharing a pipe with my next door neighbor who paid for a bigger slice of pipe. If it was *easy*, it would already be done rather than a big hairy policy issue.. ;) Of course, any *sane* provider will totally ignore what I and the other 2% lunatic fringe want, and market the plan that extracts maximum profit from the 98% Joe Sixpack customers out there. :)