So um, here's a take on Net Neutrality that I understand, but I think there's a spot of irony here that's unavoidable.

Net neutrality is both necessary and workable for what I call Jeffersonet, which comprises the “classical”, bandwidth-light parts of the Internet.
...

Network neutrality opponents, however, point to evolving and future
technologies, technically more demanding than what the current Internet
can well support. Their uses are centered on what I call Edisonet
– communication-rich applications such as entertainment, gaming,
telephony, telemedicine, teleteaching, or telemeetings of all kinds.

I'd say you're right about one thing, the comparison to the "new" internet to Edison.  If history also has anything to say about Edison, it was that he was a litigious bastard, who tried to sue and bring down any "competitors" that he could.  Go ahead and look up the battle between himself and Nikola Tesla. Among others.

Fact: Did you know that the lightbulb as we know it today, along with the entire AC power distribution system was not brought about by Edison, but by Mr. Westinghouse?  Edison was an ardent advocate of powering the grid on DC, which would have proved nearly impossible, and his lightbulb was a DC powered creation, operating on sheer heat alone.

So, "Edisonet,"  learn from history.  Eventually you will be replaced with something better, and easier to implement, operate, and maintain.  Your "Unneutral" Net will be about as feasible (and useful) as a DC power grid.

Link: The Monash Report»Blog Archive » The two Internets, Jeffersonet and Edisonet, and why they need to be regulated differently