There are also many valid uses for different classifications of traffic. An extremely simple case is a company like Skype or Vonnage or any other VOIP provider. VOIP requires consistent latency. BitTorrent or YouTube or Netflix traffic does NOT have this requirement. Each ISP currently has the ability to figure this shit out on their own. I don't see how one-size-fits-all legislation is going to work here. Is the FCC going to dictate that all SIP (VOIP) traffic must be treated at the same priority as HTTP? Are they going to dictate a big set of rules that describe allowable QOS rules for various types of traffic? Also, if someone builds some new network service that has different characteristics, how long will it take before the FCC's rules catch up?
The FCCs previous rules, which were struck down, allowed for reasonable network optimization and management. While we haven't seen the details yet you can fully expect similar language in the new rules, which would cover the issues you raise here.
The primary effect of the new rules will be, quoted from the Washington Post:
The rules ban Internet providers from several specific activities: They can’t block or stop Web services such as Netflix. They can’t slow down or “throttle” content from particular Web sites. And they can’t speed up a Web site’s traffic, particularly in exchange for money.
From the same article:
“This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech,” Wheeler said.
One of the arguments put forward by the opposition, including Comcast, is that companies that generate a lot of traffic, like Netflix, should pay to help fund the infrastructure.
That argument ignores the fact that the consumer is already paying for that. If you pay for 10 Mbps, knowing you have a 250GB monthly cap, why should the entity you're accessing have to pay again so you can access them?? Whether it's torrents, Netflix, Hulu, streaming music, Reddit, etc. makes no difference, it's the same 10 Mbps speed, with a 250 GB cap. What difference should it make where the traffic comes from??
The real issue is two fold. First, some ISPs don't want competition to the services they offer themselves. Second, they sold you 10 Mbps (or whatever level you buy) expecting you to NOT use it, and actively interfere with your service if you try to fully utilize what you paid for. That way they save dollars by not having to upgrade their network to actually provide what they sold you.
And if you don't like it? Sure, switch providers....oh wait, most people only have one choice and the ISPs want it to stay that way. So they oppose any effort of municipalities building their own network, giving consumers a choice.
Government shouldn't compete with the private sector? I live in a city with it's own network. It's wholesaled to private ISPs in the area, allowing several small businesses to thrive and compete with Comcast.