You, sir, are quite wrong. Traffic shaping, counting packets per user in the bus, is not deep packet inpection. Intercepting port 53 and replying on behalf of the real owner of the destination ip is seep packet inspection.
Also, blocking a site that sometimes does and sometimes doesn't use a lot of bandwidth, instead of just blocking all uses of lots of bandwidth by measuring it in a destination-agnostic way, is clearly the worse option.
Finally, rules and restrictions on technological devices and connectivity are retarded world-round. Your personal gadgets, your home internet connection, your phone's internet connection, all have ridiculous restrictions that no self-respecting technically savvy person follows (although most don't realize all the things they do that are against the "terms of service"). I don't get too worked up about them anymore, just systematically work around any I run into, just like any sane technically proficient person.
Even then, looking at the TCP/UDP headers to balance traffic is not deep inspection. Pretending to be a server and injecting yourself is both deep inspection and MITM.
Also, blocking a site that sometimes does and sometimes doesn't use a lot of bandwidth, instead of just blocking all uses of lots of bandwidth by measuring it in a destination-agnostic way, is clearly the worse option.
Finally, rules and restrictions on technological devices and connectivity are retarded world-round. Your personal gadgets, your home internet connection, your phone's internet connection, all have ridiculous restrictions that no self-respecting technically savvy person follows (although most don't realize all the things they do that are against the "terms of service"). I don't get too worked up about them anymore, just systematically work around any I run into, just like any sane technically proficient person.