This is a silly argument IMO. > Or are you saying we should force the road builders to ensure the road has enough capacity to allow everyone to have a siren?

This is a silly argument IMO. > Or are you saying we should force the road builders to ensure the road has enough capacity to allow everyone to have a siren? I don't know why you are trying to complicate the issue with a bad analogy. There is no reason for ISPs to be able to sell 'fast lanes' to consumers. There is no benefit to it at all and it directly impedes the service for everyone else. >Bandwidth is limited. If you have have a surge of data and have to drop some, is it too crazy to think that the videoconference for an emergency responder should be the thing to not drop instead of the youtube video? Sometimes bandwidth is limited. When it is truly limited latency goes up but it doesn't meant the ISP has to start blocking stuff. Anyways if an ISP is having bandwidth issues regularly they need to get that fixed and not try and gouge more money out of customers by offering 'fast lanes'. Net neutrality doesn't mean ISPs can't do QoS. They just can't target specific applications or sources/destinations in an effort to pry more money out of customers. You video conference example just makes no sense. Under net neutrality ISPs can still give priority to emergency responders and other critical government agencies. Go read your ISPs service agreement policy and state/federal laws if you don't believe me.