> Really, if there's not enough bandwidth, just limit the bandwidth. Users will prioritize their traffic themselves. This, I think. The rest is smoke and mirr

> Really, if there's not enough bandwidth, just limit the bandwidth. Users will prioritize their traffic themselves. This, I think. The rest is smoke and mirrors. And there may be any number of privately developed solutions. E.g. if streaming's a problem in the evening, time-shift some of it to workday/schoolday hours, when that "last mile" to the house is relatively empty. For example, Netflix could have a look at your queue and send the next item or two along in anticipation. It fits my idea, and the more sensible arguments I've heard, for effective regulation: Paint broadly and without discrimination, and let private enterprise sort out the details within those lines. The ISP's have become quasi utilities: Many people (in the U.S.) have at most one or two providers to choose from. Therefore, regulation needs to make the playing field for services level within a provider's domain. Similarly, their prices need to be regulated, as locally and regionally at least they are monopolists, or members of a very limited oligarchy. Most people can't just pick up and move in order to shop for another provider. I don't know about overall costs, but I recall reading a year or three ago that trunk data costs were halving yearly. As the end user, where is the resulting reduction in cost for my use going? (I'm not seeing it.) To infrastructure, or to excessive enrichment of those who are squeezing me for everything they can get? If the providers don't like this, well, maybe they shouldn't have spent so much time and effort squeezing out all competition. (Which they've done and continue to do. As one example, just look at their reaction to any attempted municipal provider plan. Then there's the way ILECs fight co-location of equipment and enforcement of e.g. line maintenance SLA's for competing DSL providers. (Fought? I'm not sure how much life this market segment has anymore, anyway.)) EDIT: Well, I see now that Tim's post is addressing wireless connectivity, whereas I mostly addressed experiences in the lined world. I'm suspicious of arguments that the two differ. There were the same howls about capacity, some years ago, with regard to hardline service. And, SBC -- now ATT -- dragged their feet in a quite disgraceful and disgusting fashion in the Chicago area (at least) until the cable companies started to eat their lunch, including voice service. Then, suddenly, they were able to make something happen on the broadband front. Radios in wireless devices are still -- and increasingly, given technological advances, needlessly -- crippled. Data delivery very hierarchical and without much caching. Prioritization is just the "easy way out" for the carriers. Tell them to stuff it, and make them work harder to produce some real solutions. If it costs them some money, well, I'd argue that's one thing that profits are for. They've got enough to spare.