I also agree, under certain conditions. The main ones being that this has to be disclosed front and center when agreeing to sign the contract mentioning the relative priorities that different types of traffic will receive (ex: voice - high, video streaming - medium, web browsing - low) and it should differentiate exclusively based on traffic type, not particular sources (like throttling one streaming service but not another). It should also flag when this is happening and with which type of traffic so a user can clearly determine if the service is fit for use.
Limiting bandwidth based on who pays more is just a new source of revenue disguised as network or congestion management.
Now imagine you're driving down the road and some road authority does congestion management by pulling cars over based on how much money they threw at the toll barrier or by how much their car manufacturer is contributing to the respective authority each year. After all the road has a fixed capacity and almost 0 chances of increasing it.
Any internet throttling rule that can be circumvented by paying for "priority" should be illegal.
Limiting bandwidth based on who pays more is just a new source of revenue disguised as network or congestion management.
Now imagine you're driving down the road and some road authority does congestion management by pulling cars over based on how much money they threw at the toll barrier or by how much their car manufacturer is contributing to the respective authority each year. After all the road has a fixed capacity and almost 0 chances of increasing it.
Any internet throttling rule that can be circumvented by paying for "priority" should be illegal.