Re: When is Net Neutrality not Net Neutrality?
You've hit on a point there that is sort of related. Now that all networks are a series of point-to-point links with concentrators¹, it is possible that 2 packets arrive at a switch at exactly the same time. Obviously, 1 has to be forwarded before the other, and I am happy in this case for the time-sensitive packet to go first². For me that doesn't violate the rule of "net nutrality" - the 2 packets cannot be forwarded in parallel, one has to go first.
Now the difference comes when the problem is that the network is congested. In this case, what is "fair"? For me if everyone pays the same, then everyone's packets are equal, and therefore are routed/dropped equally. Obviously if someone pays more, then they receive more share. What is not "fair" is that the ISP doles out the bandwith depending on how much they like the packet.
¹In the old days of co-ax this was all sorted out by collisions and retries. Ah cutting holes in co-ax to insert taps...
²This can fall down, like when some undergrads decided to use UDP to copy files across from the US instead of TCP, and flodded the Janet link for a whole weekend. Here is an example of where sharing the congestion works better than just deciding on packet flavour.