Net neutrality rules are about source/destination of traffic, not the type. ISPs are allowed to discriminate for/against traffic based on the type of traffic and it would be terrible to prevent them from implementing those kinds of QoS rules.
If we're going to defend net neutrality, we should at least understand what we're fighting for. And it's decidedly not to allow BitTorrent traffic to make real-time protocols like VOIP unreliable. It's about not letting ISPs favor one service over its competitors. And it's about making sure that an indie developer can send traffic to internet users just as fast as Google can.
Discussions on technically-informed sites like this one should get the details of net neutrality correct.
Going with your "source/destination" definition, one Bitcoin/Signal user is source and the other is destination. They can require traffic to be exclusively between user and approved service provider, can't they?
If they prioritize traffic to/from one Bitcoin endpoint over another, that falls under net neutrality. If they prioritize non-Bitcoin traffic over all Bitcoin traffic, that doesn't.
If we're going to defend net neutrality, we should at least understand what we're fighting for. And it's decidedly not to allow BitTorrent traffic to make real-time protocols like VOIP unreliable. It's about not letting ISPs favor one service over its competitors. And it's about making sure that an indie developer can send traffic to internet users just as fast as Google can.
Discussions on technically-informed sites like this one should get the details of net neutrality correct.