> So, anyone who can successfully define what they're doing as "not prioritizing" can entirely sidestep any regulation you have in mind. This argument makes no

> So, anyone who can successfully define what they're doing as "not prioritizing" can entirely sidestep any regulation you have in mind. This argument makes no sense. Colocating a CDN node has nothing to do with prioritization. Nobody is fiddling with any QoS settings. > Putting a server in the ISP's datacenter is a common approach. Traffic to those servers doesn't have to go over any external peering links. What is your point? > As one simple example, look at the ISPs that accelerate the first N bytes of connections, to prioritize interactive requests over bulk transfers/downloads. This is an incorrect characterization of PowerBoost. PowerBoost uncaps your DOCSIS connection temporarily to take advantage of any momentarily free spare capacity. This is not prioritization, it's getting a free tier upgrade temporarily. > Other ISPs apply more sophisticated approaches. Such as? > So, receive and deliver all traffic, regardless of available capacity or financial constraints? Don't be silly. As long as the ISP provides whatever speed tier they sold to the consumer all is good and well. If they cannot do that then they are shortchanging the consumer and should be penalized for that. > Provision every part of the network so it can handle all the traffic passing over any other part, because they're not allowed to limit bandwidth in any way at any point? Yes, to the extent required to provide the service they sold. > A saturated interconnect might mean "we're trying to screw Netflix", or it might mean "we can't afford it right now" (either because they're a small ISP and don't have the money, or because they're spending it on something their customers want more). If you saturate your interconnect you fail at ISPing. There is no excuse. Interconnect capacity is cheap and plentiful.