> 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
> 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.
> 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.
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