Just so someone that isn't a coward responds to this: BULLSHIT if you think it boils down to something as simple as "priority". Because there are a lot of ways to do QoS. You're right that, in theory, QoS is a good idea. The problem is that it can be abused. Unless they do it in a fair way. And "fair" is a tough one. But I sure as shit know that if they start charging for priority then it's all going to go to hell. How is it any different than bribing the TV station to make your competitors shows staticy?
It's BLATANTLY breaking network neutrality. This guy is promoting the idea of a non-neutral Internet. Where it's no longer an open field where anyone and everyone can play ball, but a series of closed locked gates with a myriad of gatekeepers demanding their fees and having the power to decide what does and doesn't go through. I'm not some crazy idealist that believes the Internet is perfectly neutral. TCP is simply different than UDP. But it's certainly something we can strive for. And things like QoS have to have a very careful eye kept on them least some asshole thinks that all torrents are illegal, bitcoin is treason, porn doesn't belong on the Internet, Arkansas is stupid, or Starcraft is less important than Netflix because Netflix shelled out some cash.
Is prioritizing one kind of traffic logically the same as de-prioritizing all other traffic?
Yes, it pretty much is. Did you think it was otherwise? By definition, if something has priority over something else, that "something else" has lower priority.
And some REALLY valid points from my cowardly brothers here:
1) They don't have to charge extra to perform QoS. Which you sort of acknowledge.
2) While some applications don't mind latency and what they really care about is bandwidth, if the ISP have oversold their lines (of course they do), giving streaming priority can affect bandwidth.
3) It'd be nice if the ISPs were dumb pipes and no more than common carriers who can't inspect all of our packets.