What utter nonsense it is you spew with such headlines, and such statements as "Net Neutrality is the understanding that all packets will be passed along regardless of the sender or receiver."

Sorry I don't understand Net Neutrality that way and making such definitions takes away from the spirit of the counter arguements - which is basically that until very recently any protocol over IP would fly over the net, at maximum available bandwidth from any destination to any other destination - freely and without any degree of interference.

Limiting the argument to mere all or nothing source-destination firewall rules completely misses the point.

If today I have a 1Mbit pipe with my broadband provider and I can send & receive with another broadband customer in some other customer at the same speed, with any protocol over IP and just about any content... that is because neutrality (non-interference) exists from end to end.

The second you allow ISPs to start filtering certain protocols, or allow them to QoS rate-shape them down to less-than-desirable (from the end user's perspective) speeds... that is NOT a Neutral Internet! And that is NOT acceptable!

Suggesting that QoS has nothing to do with is all fine and dandy until one day your pipe to youtube.com is down to 1Kbit/sec and the ISP (by your definition) will not be at fault because all packets are being passed along between sender & receiver... even if they are being passed along so freggin' slow that the end destination might as well be blocked!

Side question: How come we (public) can't see which journalist published this rubbish of an article?