The bulk of your statement points to net-neutrality’s non-existence (hence the existence of net-non-neutrality) – but your first statement seems to contradict that..

I want to kill whoever coined up that term, it’s difficult to clearly negate! Probably part of the plan, to stop us from actually doing anything about it! :@

Blockers:
1. It’s my network I’ll do what I want.
2. I pay the bills and it’s gotta make money (network’s not saturated or qos’d it’s just blocked)
3. Nobody’s complained about the port throttling affecting anything yet so I’ll deal with it then

Allowers:
1. The customer is paying for Internet
2. I’m paying for two T1′s it better be used
3. I’m not going to throttle something and wait for complaints, by then it’s too late.

This is from a small town ISP/WISP perspective from two very different viewpoints, one is a very fast growing WISP that gets tons of referrals and lots of word of mouth, the other has a website block list of over 20 sites and wide swaths of port throttling that could block MSN file transfers among other things.

There is a good chance now that competing wireless, cable or DSL sites will be slowed down or blocked, and I brought up possible neutrality laws. One side would rather close down, claim they are a ‘club’ or anything else to get out of the control of the government. The other is happy as pie since they do nothing that could violate other than a clamp on the total speed of the customers connection.

I can boil down net neutrality violaters to three camps:

1. Business owners (CTO, CEO) trying to block communication in an attempt to save money from wrong place.
2. Filters and throttles being used in place of re-investing in bandwidth.
3. Being afraid of competition.

I mean, really, if net-non-neutrality (you guys need to think up of a better name for that!) is so that not only do we receive our data packets after the big guys with money, but that we don’t even receive them at all, we’re severely screwed!