And, despite what it's called, the only commonality is carbonation. So, if CO2 in your drinks is causal, then the same issue should apply for beer, Champagne, sparkling wines, sparkling waters, etc., too.

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

You really don't have a clue how real QoS works.

Calling flow throttling "QoS" doesn't make it QoS, it just displays ignorance. And rate-limiting certain flows is a piss-poor way of ensuring bandwidth for others in comparison to real QoS. It does nothing to improve latency or jitter.

Nothing you do locally prioritizes incoming traffic across the Internet. For that matter, for most (all?) ISPs, your markings won't be honored on outbound, either. The most you can do locally is control which packets are sent out first when there's contention. You only control the single hop in your toy router. There simply is no QoS through the Internet.

But then, you obviously didn't know that, given your basic misunderstanding of how QoS actually works.

Nope. You can't mark the traffic being sent to you. That's so fundamental, it's clear you don't understand how it works.

That's a non-sequitur. They can do those things only because there are no federal laws preventing them.

Some concrete examples - it's federal law/regulation created using the Commerce Clause which (effectively) prevents the sale and ownership of automatic weapons. It's federal law/regulation which prevents the states from regulating radio frequency spectrum.

They're not necessarily in conflict. If I pay for X bandwidth, I should get that on a neutral basis - I'm in control of which content I ask for. If the ISPs want to charge someone else for bandwidth to me above and beyond what I'm already paying for - so for example, I get still good Netflix while simultaneously maxing out torrents on on the bandwidth I'm paying for - I have no problem with that. Of course, if I limit myself so Netflix has ample bandwidth within my subscribed bandwidth, that should be delivered without interference or cost to Netflix.

Netflix/torrents just as examples, I rarely max out my incoming bandwidth for other than short bursts. But perhaps someone wants to pay for minimal bandwidth (1 Mbps), but still get good Netflix (3 Mbps) and VoIP service. Providers should be able to pay for that additional bandwidth as part of a competitive offering. Similarly with QoS even inside the bandwidth I buy - I'd like my VoIP service to be able to have better QoS treatment, so a phone call doesn't degrade when someone else downloads a file. If all packets are treated equally, that's impossible.

The key, it seems to me, is to find some way to ensure that ISPs don't simply overprice bandwidth to the consumer in order to force providers to pay to deliver their content outside the subscribed bandwidth, and therefore gain a competitive advantage for their own offerings.

You've never read the Constitution, have you? Fact is, this would be one of the increasingly rare legitimate uses for Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which gives Congress the power

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

If SCOTUS can claim that growing a garden for personal use is Interstate Commerce, then so to is an automobile company in one state selling cars in another.

They don't have to bribe all 50 states. They only have to convince Congress to exercise its authority over Interstate Commerce to prohibit these anti-competitive state laws.

It would help his position if the FBI were to go after Federal agencies (e.g. the NSA) for their illegal violation of citizen's privacy rights, and make it perfectly clear that the only searches of cell phones the FBI is interested in would be supported by probable cause and warrants from legitimate courts.

But I somehow think his reasoning is more on par with "we don't like people protecting their rights, because it makes it harder for us to violate them."

Yet another example of violating net neutrality.

"Aluminum tubes! Why else would they ever need to buy aluminum tubes?"

Really. They come free with Cuban cigars.

Who's idea was it to do this Q&A - Slashdot or you?

"Perpetual Motion violates the laws of physics - can't be done, so any patent application is bogus, either wrong or fraudulent, not worth wasting time on."

And yet, our entire universe is in perpetual motion. Poof! you just proved you don't exist.