Yarmouth Port, MA
If you buy their argument, then protections are MORE needed Their argument is that wireless is special, and it usually amounts to problems with collisions and propagation and hidden nodes (all of which, by the way, are mitigated by the technology, but anyway...).
Let's say that argument is true. Doesn't it mean that there is more pressure than ever to squeeze whatever money they can out of such an inefficient network? Aren't there more pressures than ever for their highest-dollar 'content' to get priority?
The effective truth is that the above constraints result in a lower throughput speed and creates incentive for wireless operators to build (to create more cells and zones and decrease distance and power to eliminate speed loss). These constraints encourage good behavior.
Allowing operators to prioritize in the name of 'fairness' encourages operators to skate by on the network that they have through artificial means. Those customers close to their first link get a poorer-quality experience so that those who are distant can get a better-quality experience. That's not right -- we want the company to be in the business of constantly building out toward those distant customers.
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords