#6: you ask whether you can ever prioritize X without de-prioritizing X's peers.

The answer is an issue of semantics. You suggest that if you simply add bandwidth to the pipe and devote that new bandwidth solely to X, then Y isn't being de-prioritized because Y receives the same bandwidth after X's expansion as Y received beforehand.

I say this is semantics because it uses the connotative difference between positively benefiting X while not benefiting Y, vs. positively benefitting X at the cost of Y.

You're mistaken: if you increase the bandwidth, but only give access to the increased bandwidth to a subset of your users, then yes you have de-prioritized the other users. The only way to not be engaged in prioritizing/de-prioritizing when expanding your bandwidth is to ensure the same proportional access before/after the expansion.

This is a zero-sum game: all benefits to one party come at the cost of another party.

It's interesting to see this reaction to this sort of game. At the Knight Foundation, we've considered these programs and wondered about how people would react. Your comments are helpful.