The idea of some 1’s and 0’s being more important than others doesn't make too much sense to me. And if I've paid for 15Mbps unlimited service, then everything I download better d@mn well be coming in at that speed... for anything outside of malfunctions and breakdowns would be a breach of contract to me.
That said, if companies want to offer cheaper service plans with restricted speeds for certain sites, clearly laid out *PRIOR* to any contract signing... well, that's their perogative.
Well, unless they are a monopoly (and specially if they are a municipally sanctioned monopoly). Then, since consumers are restricted from having a choice... they would then need to be mandated to have all options available at competitive prices. And if that's a bother for ‘em, then a little free market competition might change their tune.
“The idea of some 1’s and 0’s being more important than others doesn’t make too much sense to me.”
It’s not “more important” per se. It’s “different priorities”. There are lots of types of service (TOS), some requiring high throughput, some don’t care about mbps but need a fast response time.
The bundles of bits come marked with a TOS, that way the network knows if a bundle wants to go first or if it wants to carry a lot of info even if it’s slighly delayed. And, when the network is saturated, knowing the TOS is useful to planify the best way to keep as many connections as possible running.
In short, knowing which packages should go first is a standard practice to operate a network. Yes, it could be used for evil; like for example giving 95% of the bandwidth to a single user...
“And if I’ve paid for 15Mbps unlimited service...” but then you better check if that’s really what you paid for, and if it was, then your ISP is defrauding you, and you already have a case with no extra legislation needing to be signed.