So way back when, government provided geographical monopolies to big telecommunications companies for building their infrastructure.  The result of this past government intervention and regulation is that there are now only a few corporations that, in essence "own" the internet.  Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing - they were the ones to provide the resources, and assume the risk of construction.  Sure, it would've been nicer if the government hadn't gotten involved at all, but, hey - it is what it is.

But this whole "Net Neutrality" movement has me a little confused - it seems like to me, that Net Neutrality proponents are calling for government control and intervention, to prevent the rightful owners of the infrastructure that provides the communications of the internet from setting prices for using their infrastructure.  Now, this seems pretty cut-and-dried to me - big telecoms own the infrastructure in the Locke-ian sense.  The internet's communication infrastructure is not, and has never been a public resource.  Net Neutrality is just another lib attempt to stick it to corporations, tear down capitalism, and look like Robin Hood in the process.  But hey - I'm biased. 

So I watched a few of the videos available on YouTube that are pro Net Neutrality, to get an idea of how they're framing the argument and why it's such a big deal to them - here's their argument in a nutshell:
 
1) The internet is a "two-way" content providing system, where individuals can produce and provide content (like their vlogs and stuff) to other individuals.
2) If we don't pass laws that prevent ISPs and telecommunications companies from charging different amounts of money for different amounts of usage of the internet, then the internet will become a "one-way" content providing system, like TV or radio, where only a few media giants provide all of the content.
3)  Therefore, if we don't pass these laws, then the big companies who own all of the equipment will, effectively be "censoring" the voices of individuals.
 
A lot of the "scare-tactic" videos supporting Net Neutrality like to use a clip from AT&T's CEO, where he says, "Net Neutrality?  I don't even know what that means..."  Their intent is to make it look like these evil corporations are either stupid, or they're trying to hide their nefarious plans to censor the internet.  The argument *for* Net Neutrality is made as though the owners of the internet's infrastructure are, just now, trying to pull a fast one and ruin the internet.  They make it seem like the big evil corporations have just recently come up with some nefarious plan, and are trying to enact it, and that their evil plan (that, remember, they just recently came up with, according to Net Neutrality proponents) is somehow illegal.
 
But there is no "new" evil plan.  Net Neutrality proponents are simply trying to disrupt the way that the business of the internet has been conducted, since there was an internet.  And what better way to drum up interest in their fascist cause (fascism means nationalizing certain big industries) is there, than to lie, and make it seem like Net Neutrality is a reaction to something evil, unethical, and immoral that the telecoms have just cooked up.
 
Net Neutrality isn't a reaction to a crisis - it's a manufactured "crisis" that's being used to try to inject more government control over an industry.  Ironically, the very problem that they're trying to combat (via government intervention and control) was caused, in the first place, by government intervention and control...  Is there no end to their hypocrisy?
 
I think that a great conterargument to anyone who claims Net Neutrality is necessary would be to just ask them exactly what they think will happen, in a detailed fashion, if it is not enacted, and how the big companies will "censor" everyone.  Don't accept any vague, hand-wavy scenarios - require details, like, "ISP X charges Y to Z," etc.  Then pick their scenario apart, because it'll be full of holes and inconsistencies.  For starters, one big inconsistency is that they claim that individuals will not be able to publish content, because only big websites will be able to afford to publish content...  Um.  OK, and you're posting this "OMGZ - EVIL COMPANIEZZZ!!!" video on your own web server?  No, you're posting it on YouTube.  Which is a big website.  Freaking duh.

Anyway, there's a bright side to this situation.  If Net Neutrality laws are enacted, that lays the groundwork for *my* personal cause:  Cheeseburger Neutrality!  Instead of those greedy corporate fat cats charging me by the cheeseburger, I will propose a law that McDonald's, Burger King, and any other burger joint, has to sell me a "cheeseburger eating session," at the same price that they charge to anyone else, regardless of if I eat fifty cheeseburgers and that other person might only eat one.  I mean, it's only fair, right?