> "Neutral" just means using some QoS setting that someone thought was "fair".
No, it doesn't. The Open Internet Order doesn't dictate any particular "QoS setting".
> While the alarmists predict that all google.com requests would be redirected to bing
No, they don't, they predict that prioritization of ISP-preferred (either first-party or because of payment to the ISP, often for exclusive preference in a category) will result in degradation of service to competing services and squeeze out competition, particularly for services like internet telephony and video streaming, where ISPs are often first-party providers.
No one, or nearly so, has predicted redirection of the type you describe; that's a strawman.
> prioritization of ISP-preferred (either first-party or because of payment to the ISP, often for exclusive preference in a category) will result in degradation of service to competing services
Currently the payment to ISP is conveniently handled by the CDN industry. They pay the ISP for the privilege to place a server rack or two in the ISP's data centers, and then charge customers for speedier delivery of their content to the subscribers of that particular ISP.
So what is the change that's being protested here?
By banning "throttling" it would not allow ISPs to prioritize VOIP over Tor packets, or to impose a bandwidth cap on BT traffic for a particular plan.
These regulations are a solution to a non-problem, and as is often the case with regulations, they appear to be just as likely to cause harm as to help.
> By banning "throttling" it would not allow ISPs to prioritize VOIP over Tor packets, or to impose a bandwidth cap on BT traffic for a particular plan.
It would probably prohibit the latter (or any other instance of capping any particular use outside), but provider- and content-neutral (content in terms of message, not protocol) prioritization would probably in some cases be acceptable under the exception for reasonable network management.
> These regulations are a solution to a non-problem
The anti-competitive behavior by ISPs that they exist to solve had several precedents encountered by FCC case-by-case both before and after they started drafting general rules.
No, it doesn't. The Open Internet Order doesn't dictate any particular "QoS setting".
> While the alarmists predict that all google.com requests would be redirected to bing
No, they don't, they predict that prioritization of ISP-preferred (either first-party or because of payment to the ISP, often for exclusive preference in a category) will result in degradation of service to competing services and squeeze out competition, particularly for services like internet telephony and video streaming, where ISPs are often first-party providers.
No one, or nearly so, has predicted redirection of the type you describe; that's a strawman.