Re: I've always wondered...
"cases where paid prioritization is in the consumer's best interests"
There SHOULD be 'paid prioritization'. Here is why:
a) as long as only a maximum number of packets can have paid prioritization, then nobody else will be 'crowded out'
b) paid prioritization raises revenue for the backbone, and would encourage more infrastructure to be produced with that revenue - "purchase OUR fast lane" competition even
c) paid prioritization exists eveywhere else, too. The store with the high prices that NOBODY goes to still stays in business, because its customers won't have to WAIT. So rich people go there. get it?
d) The _CLASS_ _ENVY_ "equal outcomes" crowd are driving the HATE towards those who PAY FOR FASTER TRAFFIC. Instead, millenial snowflakes need to SUCK IT UP and GET JOBS that PAY WELL ENOUGH to AFFORD IT. Then, THEY can have it, too.
There is NOTHING WRONG with "pay for better prioritization" so long as it does NOT crowd out the regular traffic. And by limiting it to a specific percentage of all traffic, on a given network, I doubt ANYBODY would notice, until overall speed starts increasing due to the additional revenue to the service providers results in better/fatter pipelines. Then we'll ALL see a benefit.
Yeah. Capitalism. it works. Just keep competition as a part of this, and we'll all be better off for it.
[but of course, the 'equal outcomes for all' socialist NINNIES want everyone to be EQUALLY MEDIOCRE, because it is NOT FAIR if one person has a slightly better something than the next guy, so it's all MARXIST THINKING driving this CLASS ENVY of NOT having PAID PRIORITIZATION]
Biting the hand that feeds IT
