[olug] could be good, could be bad

[Luke-Jr]

On Friday 23 April 2010 11:29:29 am DYNATRON tech wrote:
> to further complicate things, everyone has their own ideal of what exactly
> "net-neutrality" is.

This is probably of key importance. I think the ISPs have every right to 
prioritise packets as they please, but if they actually filter/block packets 
based on content, they should lose their "common carrier" status and become 
liable for traffic themselves. On the other hand, I think the same should 
apply to the customers-- that is, clearly defining unfiltered access (eg, open 
WiFi) as common carrier and limiting liability for the usage thereof.

I would like to see Cox/Qwest/Comcast/etc offer a pre-paid QoS feature where 
they honour the "low latency" QoS flag while billing per MB/GB of said traffic 
as long as such pre-paid funds are available. For example, so I can get better 
latency for VoIP/games. ;)