>>106354748 (OP)
The whole net neutrality thing was actually retarded.
Some traffic actually SHOULD have higher priority, and some should have lower priority.
For example, streaming: requires moderately high bandwidth, but isn't latency sensitive. It doesn't matter if a big chunk of bandwidth comes in a bit late as long as you're overall getting a lot; you'll just be loading from buffer and you won't experience much difference.
For an example at the other end of the spectrum, gaming: generally has very low bandwidth requirements, especially the deterministic lockstep networking model, but extremely sensitive to latency (especially DLN where the entire simulation will perceptibly stutter if one player has even moderately high latency).
Under net neutrality, both of these forms of traffic get equal priority, so streaming traffic can bury and delay gaming traffic. Without net neutrality, you're free to make sure the high priority gaming packets go through first (delivering a good gaming experience) without negatively impacting the streaming (since they don't take up much bandwidth, and even if they did, streaming just isn't negatively impacted by lower speeds because of the buffer).
Not having net neutrality means you can sort traffic sensibly. Net neutrality stops you from doing this. It's a good thing net neutrality failed, it would have been fucking RETARDED.
