[Jtsummers]

Traffic priority should be set by the users and the application developers, not by the ISP. Streaming video/audio should have a way to signal that they're high priority traffic (because latency is noticeable quality of service absolutely essential). BitTorrent should be able to signal that it's low priority (unless being used for streaming like Popcorn Time) since it's often used in the background as a way to get large files or file sets. HTTP traffic should be able to sit somewhere between the two, with some services announcing themselves as high priority (services that stream media over HTTP or games or whatever) and the rest announcing themselves as "Guarantee me decent latency, I need to be there in a few seconds, but under a second is overkill".

> If you think that an end to neutrality will 'ruin the internet', don't you expect consumers to choose ISPs and services that don't do it?

I have 2 wired ISPs to choose from and several wireless (well, primarily via tethering with a cellphone) ISPs. My apartment has shitty wireless reception so Verizon, Sprint and AT&T are out. That leaves Cox Cable (who repeatedly disconnected me when they meant to disconnect a neighbor, costing me two days of leave to fix their fuckup) and Windstream (a DSL provider). So if both of my providers decide to play the non-neutral game, I, the consumer, am screwed. There are no options for me in your scenario. That's the reality of the ISP situation in the majority of the US.