Comment Re:Nice Website You Have There... (Score 1) 410
If you relied on VoIP, would you like the option to pay maybe $1/month extra to have a 1Mbps fully-QoS'd channel to guarantee that your VoIP traffic always gets through no matter how badly intermediate networks between your modem and VoIP provider might be? That's one of the use-cases the EUP offered as a justification for having to allow some degree of traffic prioritization.
If you choose the right VoIP.
As long as ISPs are not allowed to intentionally degrade non-premium traffic on the back of direct-peering deals, I see no fundamental problem with it.
So they won't intentionally degrade specific traffic. They'll just allow for the creation of the network equivalent of slums. This isn't about QoS, or "enhanced" anything, as the providers are already capable of doing that. It's about large, powerful corporations leveraging their positions to increase their power. Increasing their power via the marketplace by becoming better providers would be accessible.
Why would you want the government to shift the power of the marketplace from consumers to these corporations? Instead of the market of consumers at large choosing things like "hey, I want VoIP service" or "I'd like to watch television via the internet" or "I like this new thing that has yet to become popular", consumers at large would see choices like "I'd like to choose the same thing as MSNBCComcastTimeWarner".
Skype? Netflix? Hulu? Nope. Have fun with Vongo and the thousands of other forgettable services pushed by content-providers which have come and failed miserably. Anything sensitive to bandwidth or latency like a Skype, instead of creating and setting a market for new products, will have to first be filtered through their lieges for approval.