I guess I disagree then, because when I think of QoS, I think of what has to be done to keep a network and services on it working smoothly. I consider it a viol

I guess I disagree then, because when I think of QoS, I think of what has to be done to keep a network and services on it working smoothly. I consider it a violation of net neutrality when a packet is blocked or throttled for political or business reasons, but not when a packet is blocked or throttled to keep the integrity and functionality of the network intact. Where this still intersects with politics is when an ISP makes claims like that what its customers use the network for is itself causing problems, which really is a business problem--if all your customers are using Netflix and it's choking your network, that's not a technical problem per se--it's a mismatch between the features your network offers and the features your network users desire to use. Which is a business problem. So I am against the usage of QoS as a FUD tactic, that is to say, "we have to throttle your traffic because you're abusing the network by using it." I don't consider technical QoS decisions to be a violation of net neutrality, because everything that is permitted is not good. I can saturate my upload with bittorrent traffic so that it makes looking at websites unusable. Dropping my bittorrent upload just enough that it doesn't cause this problem doesn't violate my rights as far as I'm concerned.