> discriminate in transmitting So, QoS is now banned in US? There's another side to this. Consider an ISP, which policies traffic in 3 queues: realtime (VoIP,

> discriminate in transmitting So, QoS is now banned in US? There's another side to this. Consider an ISP, which policies traffic in 3 queues: realtime (VoIP, games), normal (ordinary browsing) and bulk (file sharing, big downloads). No per-queue packet shaping or dropping, just putting packets in different queues, with different priorities - but some still could consider this "discriminating", even though such policing is done to improve the experience, not worsen it. Gaming traffic is relatively low, compared to file sharing. Obviously, if there are enough file sharers on the network, the latency will rise and gamers may experience "lags". On the other hand, BitTorrent users do not care about latency, but only about steady downloads (and uploads), so they won't lose anything if their packets would be put somehow further in the output queues. Sure, users themselves could put wanted policy in DSCP field of the packet, but sometimes they're too incompetent (rude, but true) to put the proper value (and wrong values will screw the idea, making it worse, not better, than not having any traffic priorities). Sorry to say, but things won't work this way. Obviously, if there's not just a latency increase, but packet loss - it's a sign that hardware upgrades are required. On the other side, even when hardware is operating normally, and uplink channels are not saturated, latency still matters.