[AinderS]

> Net Neutrality activists don't even want them to be able to do QoS.

I thought net neutrality activists, myself among them, just didn't want them to discriminate based on content/source/destination? I.e. no blocking of p2p traffic or Netflix. But assigning them a more extreme position does make it much easier to argue against net neutrality, yes.

On the other hand, does that mean that, provided QoS-based content/source/destination-agnostic throttling is allowed, you are pro net neutrality?

[bogantech]

> I thought net neutrality activists, myself among them, just didn't want them to discriminate based on content/source/destination?

QoS is all about discriminating based on traffic source/dest/port etc

> On the other hand, does that mean that, provided QoS-based content/source/destination-agnostic throttling is allowed, you are pro net neutrality?

I'm against ISPs being able to offer tiered services that block or slow down sites based on how much you pay but I think they should otherwise be allowed to engineer traffic as they see fit

[AinderS]

> QoS is all about discriminating based on traffic source/dest/port

"Source" as in "Netflix", not "part of network with saturated bandwidth". Though discrimination based on port is content-based discrimination, isn't it? Packets headed to port X don't burden the network any more than those to port Y, and this is an easy way to discriminate against applications that use certain ports.

[bogantech]

> Packets headed to port X don't burden the network any more than those to port Y, and this is an easy way to discriminate against applications that use certain ports.

The rules have to refer to whatever properties most accurately classify the traffic in question.

I might want to throttle or deprioritise traffic from some specific service on a specific source host and not other services.

Regardless, ISPs should be free to make classify, prioritise or throttle traffic however they see fit if it is for the health of the network and not purely for profit.

[olodus]

I would not say it is "assigning them a more extreme position". Net neutrality activists regurarely use the phrase "treat all bits the same" which I do not agree with. It is a more complex topic that we should have deeper discussions about than using blanket statements like that. If a company has created a new kind of net that provides lower latency for example then of course they should be able to have a higher rate for users of this net. However, they should be required to allow any company that wants to use this special net to be able to, not lock some customers out of it. Anyone should be able to start a company and pay extra to provide users of their service better latency or whatever. This is how net neutrality laws are designed in EU and California if I remember correctly and I think it is an OK way to solve it. Haven't seen it too long in practice though so we will see.