"Do they though?"

It doesn't matter.

Apple can charge you whatever it wants for it's iPhone. You can pay or not.

ISP's can charge you whatever they want for whatever QoS. You can pay or not. That's Network Neutrality.

What they cannot do under NN, is charge you based on who you are, or based on what you use your service for. So, charging you for Netflix usage, vs HBO usage is totally out of bounds.

If they sell you a 'streaming service' with whatever QoS - you should be able to it for whatever on earth you want.

My point is: there is usually an underlying cost-based reality to most of these things, and some of the people on this thread are not actually arguing for 'Net Neutrality' - they are arguing for 'ISP's should only be allowed to bill me in a very, specific narrow way, by law, irrespective of what consumer needs are or what their costs are'.

You've not answered if ISPs are/should be allowed to intentionally degrade traffic deemed to be "video" or "peer to peer", by shaping algorithm or packet inspection, in order to make their service unusable for that purpose unless you buy an upgrade.

NN is clear: you sell QoS, not based on what that service is used for.

So if you buy a QoS from an ISP, they can't throttle you if it's for P2P or for Netlflix or HBO or whatever. That would be against NN and of course outside the bounds of any normal QoS.

It's just like buying form AWS: you pick from any number of configurations, but AWS can't charge you if you are doing 'gaming' vs 'news' on your hosted service. Amazon doesn't bill you based on what you are doing, just how you use the service.

That's NN.

So, under NN, ISP's can definitely sell you a 'low latency' service, as long as customers want that.