(Shrug) If I vandalize a road sign, the highway department has the right to close the lane, replace the sign, and prosecute me for the act. They do not, however, get to sell the highway to a conglomerate that also owns a trucking company who will be charged lower tolls for driving on it.
That's all 'net neutrality' means, or should mean.
VoIP is content. SMTP/POP/HTML email is content. Do you want your ISP to monitor those to decide which are okay?
Discriminating against torrent traffic can be like racial profiling. A protocol is not an intent.
If you do want profiling, perhaps consumers running Windows should pay a higher fees and be given less bandwidth since those customers have higher support costs and have the machines most used for DDOS attacks, sending spam/scam and other foul behavior.
Windows machines harm the network. If a customer wishes to configure his router to share the bandwidth he's paid for, that's not theft of service. (Also read the F.C.C. notices included with U.S. routers - they don't own spectrum)
I don't know how you're getting any of that out of the proposal. All the proposal is saying is that if it's legal, the ISP can't block it. Nothing compels them to block illegal content, nor gives them any more right to do so than they already have.
If it harms users other than the ones who left their systems unprotected, then it would be a good candidate for intervention. Neutrality shouldn't be a suicide pact for the ISP, but a set of operating guidelines that cover situations short of outright abuse and vandalism.
That's all 'net neutrality' means, or should mean.