Re: ... a true evil that needs to be fought
"Attacking the person and not the argument is a logical fallacy, ad hominem. An admission of losing the argument."
It is not an admission of losing the argument. It's an admission that the argument is so cracked it isn't even worth having. But since you insist...
"All traffic shaping was made illegal. All prioritization of traffic was made illegal"
No, it wasn't. You can discriminate based on class. You just can't discriminate within a class. You double especially cannot discriminate based on sender or reciever. And you can offer different types of connections with different commitments. Nothing bans MPLS, for example.
"The FCC's "net neutrality" means the end of facilitating latency sensitive traffic over The Internet"
No, it doesn't.
"With limited financial resources, where will investment $$$ be directed? Over public internet without latency protections or over private internet where SLA's can be charged for & guaranteed?"
Latency sensitive traffic will go over managed networks. Non-latency sensitive traffic over the internet. Same it has always been. Also, the single most rational way to manage network resources, especially given the global move to encrypting everything.
"Net Neutrality is all about benefits for the privileged: wealthy and urban."
Incorrect. Net Neutrality is all about ensuring that infrastructure providers who own content providers cannot prefer or provide priority access to their content over the content of others. Simple as that.
If an internet service provider wishes to offer an Internet connection where they explicitly state in their contract with the end user "we will prioritize all SIP VOIP traffic", they would get away with it. If they said - or worse, implemented without saying so - that they would prioritize all SIP VOIP traffic originating from or destined to the carrier's SIP VOIP service, but not others, the hammer would drop.
Of course, none of this is relevant. Most of the internet is encrypted these days. The rest will be soon. Discrimination based on traffic type is increasingly impossible, and net neutrality expressly forbids discrimination based on traffic origin or destination.
Unless, of course, the ISP wants to give control over prioritization to the user. Say, by honouring QoS tags or deploying SD-WAN technologies. If the user has control over their own prioritization then they can prioritize traffic between the user and the ISP. The FCC can't shit on that.
Where it gets murky is traffic prioritization after the first mile. There are actually a number of possible legal ways to enable latency sensitive traffic streams flagged by the user to be delivered via priority network channels, but they do, in fact, require additional investment and effort from the ISP side.
I'll not get bogged down in the details, but suffice it to say that fair traffic management is, in fact, possible under the FCC's network rules. Autocratic traffic management is not.
Similarly, nothing prevents the ISP from offering a hybrid WAN connection to the user. A reserved portion of bandwidth for latency-sensitive applications, delivered as a "separate connection", despite sharing a wire. There are so many ways to skin this cat that don't involve screwing the end user that I'm going to right back to my original statement here which is that you are dumb and have no idea what you're talking about.
And that the whole debate is pretty much pointless, and not worth having. So it's better, easier, and a little bit more fun to just throw poo at the individual. Time wasted on the pointless, I'm off to bed.