Part of the problem is that there are multiple parties with multiple definitions of what has become a catchphrase to generally mean "I want fast internet". The

Part of the problem is that there are multiple parties with multiple definitions of what has become a catchphrase to generally mean "I want fast internet". The EFF says net neutrality is "the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks equally" (https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality). That is, without regard to both source and protocol. They specifically list Comcast throttling the BitTorrent protocol as an example of a violation. The people leading the charge against net neutrality are very squarely opposed to the idea of QoS (malevolent and benevolent) at the ISP level. I have very little issue with saying "thou shalt not different prioritize same-content traffic by originating IP" (provided said sources are actually not engaged in abusive behavior, ie, DDOS attacks or similar), but that's not what most people are talking about when they talk about net neutrality - they're literally talking about dumb pipes which carry and route every packet at the same priority as every other packet, and that's...just not how the internet works. Some packets are more latency-sensitive than others. You aren't really going to care if your BT or Netflix packets have 1k MS latency as long as the throughput is high, but you're really going to have an issue with your VOIP and online gaming packets when there's a 1-second delay on both ends of the pipe.