Slashdot Mirror
FCC Chair Ajit Pai Falsely Claims Killing Net Neutrality Will Help Sick and Disabled People (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: One popular claim by the telecom sector is that net neutrality rules are somehow preventing people who are sick or disabled from gaining access to essential medical services they need to survive. Verizon, for example, has been trying to argue since at least 2014 that the FCC's net neutrality rules' ban on paid prioritization (which prevents ISPs from letting deep-pocketed content companies buy their way to a distinct network performance advantage over smaller competitors) harms the hearing impaired. That's much to the chagrin of groups that actually represent those constituents, who have consistently and repeatedly stated that this claim simply isn't true. Comcast lobbyists have also repeated this patently-false claim in their attempt to lift the FCC ban on unfair paid prioritization deals.
The claim that net neutrality rules hurt the sick also popped up in a recent facts-optional fact sheet the agency has been circulating to try and justify the agency's Orwellian-named "Restoring Internet Freedom" net neutrality repeal. In the FCC's current rules, the FCC was careful to distinguish between "Broadband Internet Access Services (BIAS)," which is general internet traffic like browsing, e-mail or app data and "Non-BIAS data services," which are often given prioritized, isolated capacity to ensure lower latency, better speed, and greater reliability. VoIP services, pacemakers, energy meters and all telemedicine applications fall under this category and are exempt from the rules. Despite the fact that the FCC's net neutrality rules clearly exempt medical services from the ban on uncompetitive paid prioritization, FCC boss Ajit Pai has consistently tried to claim otherwise. He did so again last week during a speech in which he attempted to defend his agency from the massive backlash to its assault on net neutrality. "By ending the outright ban on paid prioritization, we hope to make it easier for consumers to benefit from services that need prioritization -- such as latency-sensitive telemedicine," Pai said. "By replacing an outright ban with a robust transparency requirement and FTC-led consumer protection, we will enable these services to come into being and help seniors."
The claim that net neutrality rules hurt the sick also popped up in a recent facts-optional fact sheet the agency has been circulating to try and justify the agency's Orwellian-named "Restoring Internet Freedom" net neutrality repeal. In the FCC's current rules, the FCC was careful to distinguish between "Broadband Internet Access Services (BIAS)," which is general internet traffic like browsing, e-mail or app data and "Non-BIAS data services," which are often given prioritized, isolated capacity to ensure lower latency, better speed, and greater reliability. VoIP services, pacemakers, energy meters and all telemedicine applications fall under this category and are exempt from the rules. Despite the fact that the FCC's net neutrality rules clearly exempt medical services from the ban on uncompetitive paid prioritization, FCC boss Ajit Pai has consistently tried to claim otherwise. He did so again last week during a speech in which he attempted to defend his agency from the massive backlash to its assault on net neutrality. "By ending the outright ban on paid prioritization, we hope to make it easier for consumers to benefit from services that need prioritization -- such as latency-sensitive telemedicine," Pai said. "By replacing an outright ban with a robust transparency requirement and FTC-led consumer protection, we will enable these services to come into being and help seniors."
Killing Net Neutrality certainly will disable people.
And, who knows, maybe also stop drug use, illiteracy, stop global warming and fix the infrastructure.
It is fascinating what utterly despicable failed human beings make it to the top in the west today. Having people with zero honor and zero personal morals in charge used to be a privilege of the developing world. Not anymore.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Heard another Commissioner discuss how giving the FTC authority was better than the FCC. Lying bastards. Destruction of the net is both their priority and the worst thing that could happen. Oh, Trump voters ... people who may have had to rely on the WWW for your deplorable opinions...does this one bother you ?
Telecom carriers that spend obscene amounts of cash on lobbyists and PACs to help disabled people and the elderly. That's all they want. Really.
Sounds. legit.
Re 'specific bandwidths will be available for whatever"
The paper-insulated feeder cable is always NN compliant.
Dont let other companies build new networks. They will do bad things with no NN.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
"killing net neutrality will help disabled people"
says verizon, comcast, fcc, etc
"killing net neutrality will disable people."
says vice, google, facebook, etc
don't trust either.
Your entire post is a false dichotomy. It asserts that there are only without NN, more networks would exist. Simple facts show that is false. The FCC only put in place NN rules two years ago. So before these rules, many telco networks were created? Or have telco networks been shrinking down over the last decade with or without NN?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
So how does The People fight this? No one reads /.
No one. Numbers-wise, I mean. /. is not read by enough people to truly spark Fake (or Genuine) Internet Outrage.
How come this isn't running front page on the major Muggle press?
Yeah. What they don' know won't hurt them.
But sure as fuck it'll hurt us.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
If you really believe that the US without NN will see more competition amongst carriers, you are bound for a bad surprise. Quite the opposite is to be expected: For a sizeable part of all customers, who today already have basically not more options than to contract with one locally available carrier to get (at least) the "whole Internet" experience, the number of options will decrease from 1 to zero - because especially where there are not multiple carriers already, there is no reason why the existing carrier should not cripple Internet connectivity to whatever suits him best in order to sell his own "premium" services.
And the number of "new carriers" who get into this business "because there is no more obligation to be network-neutral" will amount to exactly zero.
Your comment is NOTHING but blatantly false statements. the NN regulations didn't require ANY paperwork and they only covered transport and source discrimination and not only that but they WAIVED even that if your company served less than 100K customers.
Stop lying.
Did he even read the current rules. I would assume so which means he's just telling bald-faced lies.
I want Wheeler back.
Want to start a new network?
Have to show the federal government that your service is federally NN compliant.
You do know that net neutral systems are the default and easiest to setup?
For instance if I was developing a new subdivision I could do something like this:
1. Find one central building, near where the utilities come in. Install a gigabit switch with a lot of fiber ports. You probably need a dhcp server, though it can probably point to google's servers for dns resolution.
2. Install a gigabit to 100BT switch in all the basement of the housing units.
3. run 100BT to each housing units utility area, where the customer provided equipment goes. The customer provides a standard router plus a possible gigabit swich.
The central building needs a high capacity link to the internet and a block of IP addresses. No where in any of this is convoluted bullshit to make the network biased towards one company or another.
Being network neutral does not cost more money. It costs less. It just makes sense when your trying to promote your services or a company you like over everyone else..
So before these rules, many telco networks were created?
All of them, actually.
not a fan of killing net neutrality and by extension, Pai, the FCC, Comcast, or Verizon but come the fuck on, it's possible to write a summary without all that editorializing.
If Pai's gibberish isn't the epitome of doublespeak, nothing is.
Sorry, but you're already living the "dream". This can't extend to Australia because Australia doesn't have net neutrality laws to begin with.
That's generally not the way it works as in most any political climate (this one might be an exception) such a blatant "laws for cash" schemes would usually result in resignations, court actions and political fallout. The tried and true method of getting government officials to give companies what they want is some lobbying followed by a cushy six/seven figure position at the companies in question after they "retire" from their government position. Pai himself isn't a stranger to this process as he has made the trip at least once, working for the DOJ, then for Verizon, then the FCC.
And if a company is trying to set up 201 fixed wireless locations in rural areas with an average of 500 users in each small town location currently getting no service, they're screwed under the current regime.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Discernment of the truth is something that can be learned even at your advanced age. Don't give up and just accept that "both sides do it nobody can know what's real".
You are welcome on my lawn.
You do know that net neutral systems are the default and easiest to setup?
They're also the hardest to live with when dealing with things like limited-bandwidth fixed wireless networks in rural areas.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I wonder who is paying him under the table?
Nobody is being paid under the table. That is not how the system works. The political donations by the telecoms to Republican politicians are perfectly legal and done openly ... as are the media industry's donations to the Democrats.
FYI, I'm in Australia.
That explains your misunderstanding. In most countries corruption is illegal. In America, it is not.
Artificial scarcity is the core motivation behind the Network Neutrality repeal. They are about to roll out 5G technologies with 10gbs download speeds which is more bandwidth than most everyone will need. With cable cutters and plunging market prices the telecoms are in a panic and thus they are calling on their inside man to protect their interests. He is looking forward to his future “Pai Day” for his loyal service.
If network prioritization were a true problem then senders and receivers, the customers, should have full control of prioritization using existing Quality of Service (QoS) network features. However by giving telecoms unabated control of prioritization they can distort traffic and resume charging premiums for video and voice.
The FCC chairman has been unequivocally clear in is objectives; increased network investment (read profit) for the ILECs and absolute hands off regulation until there is a complete “market failure” (read unavoidable regulation due to universal outrage over telcom censorship and exorbitant prices).
Finally his talking point about regulatory burden on telcom technology is a joke. It is impossible for telcoms to transfer data beyond the speed of light so the only thing they can do is slow it down or block it. Providing financial incentives to enact artificial scarcity, censorship, and surveillance is the complete opposite of promoting “Free Market” ideologies.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
Have to show the federal government that your service is federally NN compliant.
No, you don't, it's just illegal if you're found to be violating it. There are numerous ISPs (including virtually all of the cellular carriers that zero-rate some traffic and not others) which regularly pay a fine because of it. It's more profitable to break NN and pay the fine, but it's even more profitable to revoke NN and not pay the fine. Theoretically, the FCC could revoke a carrier's access to their part of a the spectrum if they continue to violate it, but that will never happen due to the effect it would have on the economy (sudden loss of coverage in some areas, "too big to fail", etc).
The smaller ISPs, such as they are, almost unanimously agree that keeping NN is important, because as common carriers, it exempts them from liability for their customer's actions. Without the protections that come from Title II, ISPs that can litigate their way out of their customer's illegal activities are at an advantage.
It actually did work well in the past. I can remember when there were pages of ISPs to choose from. Now, you're extremely lucky if you have access to two. Net Neutrality has been under attack for well over a decade, eroding the internet.
And there is a point of no return.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The ISPs have always had this ability and do so under NN too. Under NN, they arenâ(TM)t allowed to slow down ER1s medical data over ER2s medical data. They can still prioritize medical data, VoIP, VOD, etc over something like webpages, ftp, bittorent, telnet, etc. NN isnâ(TM)t against QoS.
Really? No one is going to ask what the hell a pacemaker is doing connected to the internet? That is the real story here!
There was a Web Comic I saw once, which sadly I lost the link for, where a lobbyist comes into a Congressman's office and asks to donate some money in order to pass a bill. Horrified, the Congressman says that's not how he operates and for the lobbyist to come back in and try again. This time, the lobbyist says he's really concerned about some issue and wants a bill passed. Also, in a completely unrelated matter, he wants to make a big donation to the Congressman. This time the Congressman is satisfied because it's not bribery this time. (I really wish I could find that web comic.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The sick and disabled obviously should have the right to pay for paid prioritization even if they cant work or have no income to pay for the service.
Why the fuck wimp out, your country, your fucking network, grind on the fuckers until they wimp out. The ugly dumb bastard is the most hated troll on the entire internet and I mean globally. Pretty much has become the ultimate internet zero, a vacuum that draws hate and loathing from the entire public spectrum. You can bet they will stab him in the back because basically the scummy git's presence in anything is a massive negative, you could not employ, contract with or in any way associate with them, without major negative connotations. The other FCC commissioners are pushing back because they do not want to be sullied by associating with the dick. It is all rather hilarious because the more they push, logarithmically, the greater and more aggressively the push back, the more it is bringing together greater and greater opposition to the establishment. Honestly, they want to keep control and they would have to establish martial law, pretty much a couple of months ago, try it now and it will blow up in their face so bad (Trump in his arrogance driven ignorance is the gift they keeps on giving). Trying to achieve total censorship of the US internet via the abolition of net neutrality, is a really dumb thing to try, a desperate move by the truly panicky, really, really, fearful of being prosecuted for all their crimes, the assets confiscated and spending the rest of their lives in prison.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Just because a network is NN by default doesn't mean you can't throttle ALL videos to ensure quality of service.
Throttling all videos isNet neutral, as long as the isp doesn't treat their own content differently.
Here it is: http://www.gocomics.com/pearls...
Well, of course you numpty. There was no need for the term "Net Neutrality" until what had been the status quo was under attack from telecoms.
But the concept of "net neutrality" goes back to before there was even an internet. Since you seem to be uninformed on this issue, let me give you some information, with citations you can follow if you want to learn more about this matter in-depth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–_early_2000s
I will expect you to read this before replying. Go on, I'm waiting.
You are welcome on my lawn.
dropping a safe on this man from a great height would do the US a lot more good than harm.
Assuming the safe could even penetrate his aura of self righteousness . . .
Do we even make a safe that big ?
Not true. No one ever had to prove their were net neutral. Instead the FCC (in the past) assumes they are until complaints arrive.
If the hypothetical requirement to prove you are net neutral before you can start a new network were true, then why is it that the largest companies are the ones who lobbied and paid to remove net neutrality while the small players are mostly all for net neutrality? If government requirements are burdensome, then those most burdened would have been the smallest players, whereas someone like Comcast wouldn't be slowed down at all by this.
Unfortunately they were also screwed under the old scheme because the big networking companies have gone and bought off state legislatures to outlaw competition.
Anyone who thinks that the big cable companies can be trusted has not been paying attention to the news.
Pai doesn't care. All he has to do to get a cushy job later on is to say,"Well, we tried" to the telecom industry. If they get even a few bucks more out of this they'll hire him away into executive heaven after he leaves/is ousted. He's showing his loyalty to the bitter end and HE KNOWS this will never, ever get through. It's going to get sued into the turf 5 seconds after being enacted, and will probably die a long slow death in court.
Does ANYONE remember the Bushie administration? The same tactics were used! Do all kinds of things that will never work, but do enough of them and maybe a few will stick. When government fails to yield any benefit, turn around and tell your base,"Government doesn't work!" even though they've been intentionally obstructing the functioning of government and blame it on the next guy. Rinse and repeat!
-
What if they don't want to throttle all videos? What if they only want to dial down cat videos on YouTube and pron while making sure that the local community college's distance learning program's streaming video content gets top priority for users on their network? That's exactly the sorts of decisions that small network providers want to be able to make, and can't.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No. We're talking about areas where the handful of largest carriers have NO interest in spending money to set up shop. They come right out and say they won't ever provide services in those areas. This is the situation across vast swathes of the country's terrain. New technologies are shaping up to make it possible for small businesses to serve the people who live in, for example, a struggling rural town in Kentucky that Comcast and Verizon swear they will never even visit. Those small businesses need to have the ability to shape traffic as they see fit to serve their customers, especially low-income customers.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Again, this is not accurate. The FCC put in the title-ii as a result of 2014 supreme case that overturned key parts of a 2010 bill that was created due to a supreme court case that invalidate parts of a 1996 bill that amended a 1934 bill.
Basically, net neutrality existed before but was not enforceable but no one really knew if that was the case. With the repeal, you move into a framework where NN is known to be unenforceable.
This Just In: Government regulator and former top lawyer for a corporation tells lies that benefit his former employer.
Film at 11.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Even if they have no plans to offer service in some regions, they still don't want anyone else doing so either. Some state legislatures have forbidden municipal broadband at the request of giant telecoms.
No low is low enough for them. Amazing.
-- Cheers!
If the only way he can sell this change is to blatantly lie about easily-verifiable things like the telemedicine exception, you know he doesn't have any good arguments.
Nope, no sig
If what you are saying is true, then please explain why major ISPs are in favor of eliminating NN?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
But they need not do it by creating fast lanes and slow lanes. They need not do anything like deep packet inspection. Simple fair queuing will take care of it.
In other words, throttling to contracted bandwidth can be done in a neutral manner just fine.
In most countries corruption is illegal. In America, it is not.
Ha ha, no. In America it just isn't corruption if it isn't explicitly bribery with a clear quid pro quo agreement between the two parties. In America we have our own definitions for lots of words, some people call that "American exceptionalism."
it is fine, as the highly controversial Citizens United ruling said in 2010, for wealthy campaign contributors to expect that their dollars will buy “ingratiation or access” in governor’s mansions and statehouses
I wonder who is paying him under the table?
An appreciable amount of people believe in a magical skydaddy.
A slight minority of Americans believe that Trump was the best choice for president.
Even here on Slashdot where we hold ourselves as members of a generally more intelligent crowd we get people who believe the world is red or blue and don't actually analyse issued on their merits or refuse that both sides of politics are wrong.
What I'm saying is, people don't need to be paid under the table. Some people are genuinely stupid.
I am really not too concerned about this because I am sure this will be challenged in a court. While the challenge is proceeding, plaintiffs can ask for an injunction. When 80+% of people support net neutrality, the court system should side with the people. Ajit Pai's actions really make me want to turn into a troll but I am holding it together.
It seems there is no end to the amount of drivel that this man will allow himself to spew forth.
Sadder still is that a good portion of the people that repealing NN affects, will give this nothing more than a cursory glance and blindly swallow what a person of authority told them is best for them.
Your sig here!
In other words, throttling to contracted bandwidth can be done in a neutral manner just fine.
That's the problem. If you're neutral about it, then 95% of your bandwidth goes towards providing services for two or three huge corporate media companies - a recipe that an ISP offering the benefits of distance learning, telework, security systems and other uses may have a real need to manage "unfairly." There's nothing wrong with tamping down somebody's overnight TiVo "suggested viewing" download they didn't even ask for while someone else's physics class video gets priority.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Should the community college have to pay for fast-lane access?
Who said that? You did.
Dismantling NN isn't for the small network providers and doesn't benefit them. It's for the big ones who can afford to discriminate.
What? It's the handful of huge companies who WANT the current NN framework because they can handle the compliance impact while smaller businesses competing in the fringes where people who desperately need higher speed service cannot. Shilling for Obama's edict is you working for Comcast and Verizon.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Regulation is needed when there are severe problems in private market and these problems are not being solved for a prolonged period of time. CO2 emissions seems to be a good such example, and either carbon tax or cap and trade a reasonable response. Even phone number portability is arguably unnecessary. The same problem was being actively solved by services such as Google Voice and over the top apps. Arguably legislation suffocated these services and left us stuck with inconvinient phone numbers rather than calling each others by name/email. Internet neutrality - phew! What horrible things were happening in 2015 before the rules were enacted? What is so wrong in many countries that have no neutrality regulations today? Why can't we regulate things later when there is a specific problem rather than pulling doomsday scenarios out of our asses? I saw a Vice News episode last night and this guy is getting racist threats and having to hide his family. Don't people have some other priorities? Like maybe worrying about getting nuked by North Korea instead of Hulu streaming in 4K?
WTF? There's no reason for an ISP to censor traffic. I'm on a rural wireless plan, in a country with net neutrality and much less populated then yours. It's really simple, I pay for so many GBs, 250 in my case and whether I use it all up at Netflix or streaming a video of a bird feeder or downloading Linux ISO files is none of my ISP's business. What is their business is if I use more then my allocation.
That's all that is needed, sell packages of X GB rather then advertising unlimited when you can't deliver unlimited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
What's this "compliance" crap you're talking about? The ISP is supposed to sell bandwidth, not tell you which channel you can watch. And in the present day closed markets of exclusivity we need laws that prohibit any prioritization of specific traffic. The ISP should be seen and regulated as a public utility, at least until the market can be pried open where anybody can put up a server without violating some monopolistic ISP's TOS
As much as you hate the idea, we can use the government as our voice when we have no real economic clout.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Nice straw man argument there. You win! You totally won the debate that nobody is having. Way to go.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So all of them were created before NN rules were in place. That sorta destroys his argument doesn't it?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I read his argument as being that NN rules help entrench incumbents and prevent new entrants. So no, the fact that all new entrants were in place before the 2015 NN rules seems perfectly consistent with his argument. It doesn't really support his argument, either (hard to discern signal from noise in two years), but I guess I'm not seeing why you think it's a smoking gun in the other direction.
Only if the customers freely choose to request that traffic. If, instead they choose distance learning, telework, security systems and other uses, that's what they will get. It isn't the ISPs call, it's the paying customers'.
Except it isn't at all a strawman. It's just devastating to your argument. The only reason an ISP might have to limit customer A's video download in order to provide customer B's physics video is if they deliberately sold more bandwidth than they actually had. That is, if they committed fraud.
I read his argument as being that NN rules help entrench incumbents and prevent new entrants. So no, the fact that all new entrants were in place before the 2015 NN rules seems perfectly consistent with his argument. It doesn't really support his argument, either (hard to discern signal from noise in two years), but I guess I'm not seeing why you think it's a smoking gun in the other direction.
And in the many, many years before NN, hordes and multitudes of new ISPs were created every year? That's against basic facts that the number of ISPs have dwindled down to a handful before NN and continued to do so after NN. Or did NN have really no effect on the creation of ISPs before or after. That's like saying my Axe body cologne drove away supermodels considering I had 0 supermodel girlfriends before I used it and 0 after I used it.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Saying that NN further entrenches monopolists by increasing barriers to entry can be true no matter how many other barriers to entry there already are. That seems pretty basic.
Again false logic: I'm pretty if something does not change the numbers of ISPs before or after it's implementation for 2 WHOLE years, it had no real effect. My Axe body spray is definitely keeping away supermodels. It has no bearing to the fact I don't live or work anywhere near supermodels and can never meet them.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I'm pretty if something does not change the numbers of ISPs before or after it's implementation for 2 WHOLE years, it had no real effect.
I have no thoughts one way or the other on your looks, but hopefully they exceed your capacity for critical thinking. Two years might be long enough to make directional judgments about production rates of cat videos or mobile apps, but it's almost certainly not long enough to determine trends for high-inertia businesses like ISPs. Have a good weekend, friend.
I have no thoughts one way or the other on your looks, but hopefully they exceed your capacity for critical thinking.
Yet you keep posting the same false dichotomy.
Two years might be long enough to make directional judgments about production rates of cat videos or mobile apps,
If that's what you believe an ISP is then that shows your lack of thinking.
but it's almost certainly not long enough to determine trends for high-inertia businesses like ISPs. Have a good weekend, friend.
So you admit that NN did nothing for or against ISPs?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
An ISP sells a connection to the network. You pay for the pipe size you want. The bigger the pipe, the higher the cost.
Selling internet by the gigabit or megabit is a heinous crock of shite as there is no more cost to providing more data once the pipe is put in. Mo money, mo money, mo money, less service. It is not like time sharing on a cell tower; the wire is in, you have the pipeline to the backbone. The only problem is when an ISP oversells their retail connections higher than the pipe to the backbone they are willing to pay for.
An ISP is NOT a content provider. That an ISP wants to throttle anything they don't have a financial stake in is just trying to give the golden goose an enema. Comcast and AT&T mergering their way into a duopoly doesn't mean the the structure of a network has changed. It just means they are trying to leverage every mite and shekel they can.
Moving from considering the internet as a "utility" to considering it as a "commodity" means the big bucks will buy and control it all instead of the level playing field the internet has been since inception.
NRRPT/RCT
Pay attention to who is shilling whom.
Companies that have financial stakes in content providers and are also retail internet service providers want net neutrality kaboshed.
Content providers that make more money from having people access their services want net neutrality to continue.
A level playing field benefits consumers and content providers. Making the internet into a "commodity" only benefits the ISPs that own content providers as they can then block and throttle anyone they don't own.
NRRPT/RCT
There is no such thing as "total bandwidth".
There is "total traffic" for a given period of time.
Bandwidth is akin to the size water pipe you have running to your house. You can only get so much through it before the flow degrades. You rent a pipe from the ISP and it is irrelevant how much you bring through the pipe as it costs the ISP the same for a Megabit or a Gigabit of data coming through.
NRRPT/RCT
"They could solve this by saying 95% of subscribers have to have the "standard" service, and they can give 5% a different service. That should basically preserve the spirit of neutrality whilst allowing exceptions."
It is called buying a larger bandwidth ISP service package to get higher speeds.
It comes down to what an ISP is. Is an ISP a provider of a connection to the world wide networks of the internet or is it like cable TV where the owners decide what you can have available and you can buy "premium" services if you can afford it.
Throttling is just a sneaky way of censoring what you are allowed to read and watch.
NRRPT/RCT