The author writes, "If you don't take the initiative to tell them how you feel, this issue could be decided based on the efforts of high-paid lobbyists backed with dollars from parties whose interest is in their own profits, not in maintaining a free and competitive global network."

Leaving aside that the profit motive is not mutually exclusive with competition and that self-interest is usually not a bad motivator, and that low-paid lobbyists are no nobler than high-paid lobbyists, and that high-paid lobbyists often advocate for good things despite being lucky enough to get paid so much, I cynically contend that the process is likely to be influenced by lobbyists in any event.

Net neutrality is critical for a fair playing field. Just like one cable channel doesn't get faster delivery than other channels, or one phone call doesn't get faster lines than other phone calls, we need to be sure the Internet doesn't fragment in many different levels of service that allow those with deep pockets to buy all the "fast lanes" and leave us with the dregs.

While mail has varying levels, it's not a fair comparison because the level of effort to deliver a package in one day versus 3 days is dramatically different. In the end, a closer analogy would be to allow me to pay more for first class mail so that I could ice out your first class letter from being delivered in a timely fashion. Car lanes shouldn't be parceled to the highest bidder, nor should bits traversing the Internet. A user can always buy more bandwidth if lots of data is needed, but that's not the same as saying my packets will block yours because I paid more than you.