All network traffic is the same. As far as an ISP should be concerned, it's all just bits flowing through a wire. When they start characterizing those bits, net neutrality is violated.

> All network traffic is the same.

No competent network technician would mark VOIP the same as Torrent traffic.

Now, all Internet traffic may not be handled in such a manner but that's another matter.

You may want it to be the same... or you may want for it to be treated as if it's the same, but all network traffic is not the same. There are all sorts of classifications.

> You may want [data traffic] to be the same

For all intents and purposes, data traffic is exactly the same: with the majority being TCP and a smither of UDP.

That's about it as far as your ISP should be concerned.

You personally might want to divide it up further between bt, streaming, messengers, http, etc.

But the result of such a division for an ISP means that they get to decide which networking applications you get to run on your computer. That is likely what they want: their own walled garden.

Whether all these applications use the same port and protocol is an irrelevant distinction here. Arguing against net neutrality is arguing in favour of an external agent determining which networking applications you can run on your own hardware to connect to the world.

There is no "both sides of the argument" or "Devil's advocate's arguments " here to be explored for the more critical minds, and there is no "Internet Freedom" to be gained by any definition of those words.

Net Neutrality is a fundamental tenet of the Internet. A network without it is simply not the Internet, technically, morally, and historically.

There may be many different uses for those by bits by applications, sent via different ordering schemes (TCP etc) but the fact remains that internet consumers pay and should continue for the connection itself, not what goes down that connection.

Data is the same. Bandwidth is the same. Use more bandwidth get charged more. Use more data, get charged more.

Should I be charged differently for using that bandwidth to view facebook instead of your personal blog?

The obvious problem is that if an ISP wanted it could simply throttle Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon until they die out (which would be convenient for many TV/Telecom companies).

And maybe less obvious is the start-up that Netflix once was has a tougher go of it because Comcast wants their content streamed nicely and has to keep the Netflix customers from yelling too loud and have to squeeze someone's bandwidth to make profit goals which is perfectly legal as long as they are transparent about it.