I strongly support net neutrality. Rather than stating my personal opinions, I instead include a set of interrogatories:

1. An Internet Service Providers (ISP) by its very name exists to provide Internet service. Under what pretense does such an entity claim to know how to prioritize content to which it is being paid to provide access? Should an ISP have the right to make blanket determinations of interest to the detriment of everyone else, both consumer and creator?

2. In similar thread, if most individuals do not access government Web sites should access to those sites be throttled based on unpopularity of access? On the contrary, should access be bolstered based on regulatory or monetary (or other) compensation despite unpopularity of access? Can a Starbucks be built in the middle of an interstate because they pay for it to be such?

3. As non-governmental entities, should ISPs be given the choice of governing access to information, resulting in de facto censorship?

4. By controlling traffic requests based on delivery pertaining to such requests, should ISPs be allowed to exert undue influence on the operations of other businesses and entities? How is this different than blanket extortion, much like a protection racket?

5. By what authority should ISPs be given authority to decide what has value on the Internet? e.g. If information regarding a company's actions and status is withheld from investors, would this not be a blatant attempt at influencing the free market? Would it be considered manipulation of a criminal nature?

6. In the event that ISPs are given the right to prioritize content, should a full disclosure of the nature of such prioritization be required to be presenting to all existing and future customers of said ISPs to avoid claims of fraud in the marketing of their services, similar to current cellular coverage areas and credit card disclosures? In particular, should a detailed list of all Web sites and services that are given sub-prime access be required?

7. Would a governmental appeals process be available to consumers and content creators when access to content is throttled or denied despite following all ICANN regulations and paying for hosting of content? 

8. Should Internet access be entirely government regulated to prevent such regulatory and legal hurdles, thus eliminating private ISPs entirely and providing a revenue stream for government entities? e.g. There are no toll-based access lanes to get on the beltway around DC, so why should ISPs be allowed to inquisition traffic getting onto the Internet and impose restrictions based on destination? e.g. I am terribly sorry senator, but your home is not on our preferred road network, so you're just going to have to move somewhere else or take nine hours to get home.