[nhnifong]

You write like lawyer, leaving me convinced that you stand nacently on both sides of every junction of opinions regarding this issue, except this one:

If the Internet existed to serve some obvious goal, it would be trivial to determine whether prioritizing packets would help or hinder its achievement, but as far as I can tell, It does not exist to accomplish any obvious goal. The net neutrality debate is essentially the Internet's own existential conflict.

Part of the supporting argument in favor of net neutrality says that prioritizing packets would not be wise because we cannot predict what the Internet will be used for in the future, and that those packet prioritization rules will inevitably end up in conflict with the goals of future internet users. (eg. The I. doesn't know what it want's to be when it grows up. boo hoo)

Ironically (is it?) the very act of prioritizing communications in any way, would set the I. on a one way path towards serving a particular purpose, settling the issue of whether it should have done so in the first place. (eg. The I. wants to be a good targeted advertising delivery system, nothing else.)

So what is at stake for the Internet is that same thing that is at stake when a conscious person has a mental breakdown over the purpose of their life.