So... my statement is correct... but making it makes me look clueless? What an odd thing to say... well not as odd as what you go on to say.
Of course some traffic requires lower latency than others.
Did I say otherwise?
But the traffic of two content providers of the same kind of traffic should not be allowed to be prioritized to the advantage of one and the detriment of the other.
I don't think anyone is advocating for Amazon to be able to pay UPS to slow down the delivery of packages from Best Buy. But shouldn't they have the option for different shipping speeds depending on need? Sometimes that means lower priority parcels may not get processed as fast.
Doesn't relate to the internet you say? You really should re-read the specs on the IPv4 packet... specifically the differentiated services field. It's almost as if the idea of prioritization was something that's been around for quite some time!
You know this is the purpose of 'Net Neutrality(tm)' and yet you still make these "pipes are roads" and "bandwidth is limited" arguments.
Sorry for seeing the bigger picture.
If Hulu and Netflix each pay for 1 gbit connections to the network, then every client on every ISP had better get the same latency from each. Any variation had best be due to geography and physics, not purposeful throttling.
You assume the routes that Hulu and Netflix take in order to get to your house are the same... and that the routes do not vary depending the ISP someone is using. Spoiler: Not all of the connections between user and service are equal in capacity or utilization.
Such an assumption is not only woefully naïve, but absolutely incorrect.
Maybe you need to spend a little more time with tracert and less time arguing about things you don't understand?