There are many ways to use QoS. Two of them are:
1, "The stuff I ( the bandwidth provider ) want to go faster, like my internal <pick service here>, will go faster, and external services from other vendors/services will go slower, actual bandwidth be damned, to make mine the 'best' ( or maybe even 'the only usable' )", because perceived profits / advantage to the provider.
2, "Services that are more time sensitive will have higher priority", because it is in the interests of the purchaser.
Number 2 is a perfectly valid reason and way to implement QoS.
I have a hard time seeing NN proponents being opposed to this. In fact, in my opinion, #2 *is* NN.
Number 1 would be the reason to oppose, but it does not have to be that way.
I do not want Maytag working with my gas/electric provider to "ensure" that Maytag washers, dryers, stoves, etc work great, and everyone else's suck.
I do not want Goodyear working with Chevy to "make sure" that Goodyear tires are great, but all others suck.
*I* pay for my bandwidth. *I* don't want the vendor choosing what services I can use over that bandwidth.
*I* pick what I use.
If they cant be profitable, that is on them, they need to find a way to make it work.
They should be in the business of transferring bits, nothing else.
You are correct about politicians being technically clueless. So what?
Does that mean we all go back to living in caves?
Educate them. We, as a community, have screeched loud enough to be heard on this before.
Lets do it again!