To understand net neutrality's principal flaw -- imagine "neutral" health care...

If you want to test the validity, appropriateness or reasonableness of a so-called inviolate "principle" like net neutrality, it can be instructive to apply that principle in a different context to see if it makes sense.

What if we passed a law that all health care had to be neutral?

• That all patient treatment always had to be just the same?  
• That any prioritization of patient treatment would be deemed illegal discrimination?

What would be the nonsensical result of such a broad imposition of a "neutral" medical treatment mandate?

• No emergency rooms, because judging one patients ailments more urgent for treatment than another's could potentially be discriminatory. 
• No emergency triage treatment in response to a high-casualty disaster to save the most people possible, because treating any patient differently than another could potentially be discriminatory.
• No medical screening or quarantining of potentially contagious patients, because that could potentially be discriminatory.
• No medical specialization, all "one-tier" of general "neutral" practitioners with all the same training and provisions, because providing "special" treatment, equipment, facilities, or pharmaceuticals for "special" ailments could potentially be discriminatory.
• No surgeons, disease specialties, or body-system medical specialties because providing special treatment could be potentially discriminatory.
• No age specialization like neo-natal, pediatrics, eldercare etc. because providing different treatment could potentially be discriminatory.   
• No choice or option of overall medical approach, MD vs DO vs holistic vs oriental medicine etc., because allowing different approaches to medicine could potentially be discriminatory.  
• No medical judgment in dealing with hypochondriacs, because empowering health care providers latitude in judgment could potentially be discriminatory. 
• Health care treatment police that are more concerned with whether treatment is "non-discriminatory" than whether people get the special, individual, personal, and appropriate care they need to survive, heal or thrive?   

The fundamental problem with the net neutrality movement is that they have unreasonably put the principle of guaranteeing "non-discrimination" above all the other values and principles everyone also cares about.

• Life, society, communication and commerce are not that simplistic.
• Our diverse society values many things to different degrees in different circumstances. 
• Net neutrality is unreasonable because it rigidly and coercively mandates one principle supreme above all other principles people care about on the Internet.