Any time someone uses diminished quality of service as an argument against general freedoms, you should be skeptical. I’d like to say they are 100% full of shit, but won’t because I maybe just haven’t thought of a counter-example.
The true motivation is protecting a market foothold. Good example is Apple making it increasingly difficult to service their machines and shutting down third party repair services. They claim that servicing is dangerous and complicated while at the same time actively designing their computers to be more dangerous and difficult to repair.
It’s fine to not release internal repair manuals or sell replacement parts, but no company should be forced to do these things. Likewise no consumer should be sued for what they do with something they own.
The reason we “need” government protections against this behavior is because the behavior is already protected and encouraged by the government.
The choice is to either remove the government protections in the first place or use the government as a weapon against the companies.
But I’m criticizing the reason itself of improving QOS. It is a statement meant to put you in your place as a naive consumer. The hope is that you accept that there are just some things too complicated for the average person to understand. But I’m telling you it’s bullshit.
Quality of service, reliability. It’s what you need when you want to make sure that when things work, they work as planned. An all or nothing approach. It’s an abused, old way of thinking that creeps into many models.