This is an interesting direction for things to take, if in fact the 'safety' angle starts to become more prominent. Without some way of maintaining 'net neutrality', the government would be left to both build a set of standards for QOS/Diffserv and enforce them. Not a politically minded person, I would imagine the FCC could be tasked with the architecture and enforcement roles. Just from a standards point of view, coming up with a comprehensive QOS design for the Internet, I would think, would be a nightmare for the telcos and other ISPs. Such a set of requirements would without doubt dwarf any legislation drafted to keep the Internet neutral. ISPs would very likely end up under a much larger set of government regulations than with net neutrality safeguards in place, if people start going down the safety argument path. Of course, so much of the rest of the world's Internet traffic flows through the large backbone 'pipes' in the US, I can't imagine how other countries would feel about the FCC regulating their Internet traffic. There yet another angle unexplored - that if in fact QOS/Diffserv settings are implemented, this is yet another avenue for mischief, since those protocols are not secured (very few TCP/IP protocols are secured), and are certainly vulnerable to misuse by anyone capable of manipulating those settings in their TCP/IP packets. I haven't really given it much thought, but I think it would be possible to take advantage of the fact that routers and switches are paying attention to QOS/Diffserv to accelerate DDOS traffic, for example.