Yes I definitely think there's a connection. However I don't understand the need for these new policies. I have a friend who is a Verizon Network Performance Engineer, and I can assure you that they already have proper QoS policies and protections against malicious activity that's detrimental to the network (no I don't mean basic stuff like tethering or torrenting, either). They've had that for years.
In a business environment with ip phones on the network, you typically use tagged VLANs to separate voice traffic and give it a higher priority than anything else, then network management traffic, then video traffic, provided that's a necessary part of that office's work flow. Then you have normal data traffic on a lower priority VLAN. Basically, you look at which services will be most affected by latency and/or bandwidth restrictions and rank them in order of importance. Put each type of traffic in its own VLAN and prioritize accordingly. Alot of higher end switches have algorithms that will perform basic QoS like this without even needing to manually set up.
Actual throttling would only come into place when there's not enough bandwidth to support all the services running concurrently. You would limit bandwidth on the lower priority VLANs to ensure enough bandwidth for key services. QoS algorithms on the switches will do this automatically based on the policies you have set in response to heavy usage on a particular sector of the network.
You can also identify sectors of the network or individual nodes that are using an inordinate amount of bandwidth. Typical policy would be to identify what was using that much extra bandwidth, and determine whether it is normal for that device, or whether it needs to be temporarily isolated from the network until you can identify the cause. Typically its either an infection, or unauthorized activities, and those can be both be addressed and corrected. Depending on HR decisions, certain users may be given temporary or permanent bandwidth limitations.
If the office relies heavily on bandwidth to the WAN, and that's limited, you may have to set lasting bandwidth limitations on entire groups of users or segments of the network, but it's all done in the name of ensuring the best performance for all.
Verizon clearly states that their policies will continue to affect a given user for up to two months, that it is based on collective usage over a month, rather than actual load of their device on the network, and that it will only be applied to UDP users. This does not fit the model of proper QoS for the network, but rather seems designed specifically to lower the quality of the network experience for UDP users, to encourage them to either go with a tiered plan or cancel their contract with Verizon altogether.
It is this practice of abusing network QoS policies to extort users that the FCC takes exception to. Basically, if you feel the need to introduce stricter QoS policies because you're apparently experiencing difficulties maintaining bandwidth on your network, fine, do what ya need to do. Seems odd you'd wanna advertise that fact to everyone. But treating users differently in terms of QoS based solely on the business relationship they have with the carrier is against regulations on Block C spectrum. There are no speed tiers with wireless carriers (yet), only monthly usage, so there is no justification for them to break the agreement they had with the FCC when they first purchased Block C.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram