"all data packets are treated equally"
It's also highly misleading as to the nature of the issue, even though it's often presented as a packet prioritisation issue. What is of at least as much importance is the topology of how the ISP connects to the Internet. Many people have the simple view that the Internet is some sort of great big network cloud and ISPs just lease connections into this core. For the large ISPs this is far from the case. There will be a number of different peering arrangements, especially to content delivery networks. It would be something of a disaster if all those media streams crossed over core interconnects.
There is not only the issue of content delivery networks, but some big content providers (reputedly) provide content caching capabilities to be installed into the networks of large ISPs (this is more cost effective for both). Of course, small ISPs and minor content providers have trouble competing with this, unless subscribed to some specialise networks (like those content delivery networks).
Just what net neutrality means in all this world, I don't know. A lot of the controversy in the US has been some ISPs refusing to pay the whole costs of peering to the CDCs of some content providers. The content providers are not happy about having to "buy" such links to ISPs themselves.
So, all this characterisation of net neutrality just being about "treating all packets equally" on the ISP's network is highly misleading. This latter is becoming less relevant as ISPs upgrade their backhaul networks. The interconnect issue will remain.
*** edit ***
I've attached a link to a very informative article on how the Internet is actually working and what the net neutrality issues mean in practice. The simplistic "cloud" model of the Internet and those who think it's about "treating all packets equally" ought to read this stuff as, frankly, most of them don't seem to have a clue about modern networks.
Edited by TheEulerID (Sat 13-Jun-15 19:40:29)