Consider any bandwidth user who doesn't use p2p software: Suppose they download 3 movies per night from iTunes. On my connection movies take about 10 minutes each to download. That's 30 minutes of 100% capacity out of each 24 hour day. Add in a fraction more for email, IM, web surfing, etc.
Now compare this to a P2P user who utilizes 100% of upstram and 100% of downstream bandwidth capacity 24/7.
It is a massive, massive difference. You can organize the "typical" vs "p2p" users a variety of ways, but even the most intense consumer of internet video barely scratches the surface.
ISPs are simply in the business of repackaging bandwidth. They buy bandwidth in bulk (which is typically symmetric for upstream and downstream, and they repackage it as residential bandwidth having much more downstream bandwith and just enough upstream to not inhibit downstream traffic.
They also buy bandwidth that requires super-expensive dedicated hardware and repackage it so that a $50 cable modem can provide a "reliable enough" connection in a consumer's home.
The reason bandwidth costs about $60/month for a 16 megabit connection (the price I pay currently) is because there are a lot of assumptions made about what constitutes 'typical' residential use. Part of the profit model of an ISP comes from bandwidth speculation. Just as a commodity speculator may buy pork belly futures from a farmer in expectation of future actual hogs, ISPs buy large amounts of bandwidth from major backbone providers with the expectation of being able to resell it as residential bandwith. The assumption on which all of this is based is a typical residential user's actual usage pattern.
ISPs have found that residential users prefer high peak download speed over anything else, so they package and price accordingly.
All that would happen if P2P use increases is that ISPs would be forced to increase bandwidth prices on everyone in order to remain profitable. So in effect, net neutrality will force everyone who doesn't use their residential connection in an atypical way to subsidize those who do.
You are correct that an ISP could redirect all DNS bounces or worse, but it is unlikely that such things would get out of control due to competition from other firms. If there is insufficient competition, that is an antitrust issue, it has nothing to do with "net neutrality".
Net neutrality is simply one interest group trying to get the government to meddle with the pricing scheme that has been voluntarily created by one firm and is preferred and accepted by the vast majority of consumers.
Now compare this to a P2P user who utilizes 100% of upstram and 100% of downstream bandwidth capacity 24/7.
It is a massive, massive difference. You can organize the "typical" vs "p2p" users a variety of ways, but even the most intense consumer of internet video barely scratches the surface.
ISPs are simply in the business of repackaging bandwidth. They buy bandwidth in bulk (which is typically symmetric for upstream and downstream, and they repackage it as residential bandwidth having much more downstream bandwith and just enough upstream to not inhibit downstream traffic.
They also buy bandwidth that requires super-expensive dedicated hardware and repackage it so that a $50 cable modem can provide a "reliable enough" connection in a consumer's home.
The reason bandwidth costs about $60/month for a 16 megabit connection (the price I pay currently) is because there are a lot of assumptions made about what constitutes 'typical' residential use. Part of the profit model of an ISP comes from bandwidth speculation. Just as a commodity speculator may buy pork belly futures from a farmer in expectation of future actual hogs, ISPs buy large amounts of bandwidth from major backbone providers with the expectation of being able to resell it as residential bandwith. The assumption on which all of this is based is a typical residential user's actual usage pattern.
ISPs have found that residential users prefer high peak download speed over anything else, so they package and price accordingly.
All that would happen if P2P use increases is that ISPs would be forced to increase bandwidth prices on everyone in order to remain profitable. So in effect, net neutrality will force everyone who doesn't use their residential connection in an atypical way to subsidize those who do.
You are correct that an ISP could redirect all DNS bounces or worse, but it is unlikely that such things would get out of control due to competition from other firms. If there is insufficient competition, that is an antitrust issue, it has nothing to do with "net neutrality".
Net neutrality is simply one interest group trying to get the government to meddle with the pricing scheme that has been voluntarily created by one firm and is preferred and accepted by the vast majority of consumers.