paid vs netral (Score 1)

The whole "paid vs neutral" network access is more suitable for politicians and lawyers than to true networking folks. We (networking folks) know anyway that most (if not all) networks have at least 2 traffic classes and some have as much as 8! This is normal and ensures the reliable operation of the networks in normal conditions. Most of the people on the planet, (including lawyers, politicians and businessmen) do not know about this fact, I think. Because if they did - why would they argue about network neutrality? Many websites deliver enhanced user experiences for the paid subscriptions today. But without the network, this paid services might not be delivered as advertised. Oh well, even in RL, you can pay extra and travel in First Class/ Business Class if not prepared to suffer from the Economy. So, what is wrong with prioritization of the premium content for the fee while making sure that it is delivered as advertised to those who paid for it? What would be wrong with having rotten spamers and denial of service attack operators squeezed from the net by pure economics alone? What would be wrong with having the 'normal' internet subscriptions equaled to the flights in 'economy' in terms of user experience? Nobody is planning to take over the world secretly, we (networking folks) just want to make the internet a better place, kind of a nice neighborhood instead of what it is now, which resembles 'wild wild west of 18th century'. IMHO - someone is benefiting from inflating these debates and filling the lawyers pockets with a lot of money in the process, none of which go to improve the user experience on the net, BTW. FYI - I am not employed by Google and not planning to work for them in any capacity any time soon, so my opinion is 'network neutral' :-)