and the barrier to enter is extremely high. It puts the consumer in a position where they have to choose the lesser of two evils (kinda like picking between Democrat and Republican IMO). A form of net neutrality would help make sure capitalism isn't abused.

I am a libertarian and normally am against this sort of thing. However, I used to work for MSFT. I know how companies can use their market dominance to cannibalize other markets and prevent competition ... we did it.

Amazon is doing it now ... dominance in shopping will help them expand their cloud services at a lower cost. This gives them the chance to push out smaller players like Rackspace and offer even more services.

Google tries to do this to MSFT by offering their productivity suite for "free". They are trying to dominate advertising by collecting your information, but by hurting MSFT's biggest money maker they can keep down solutions like Bing or Office.

Facebook is using its social media presence to extend into search, then video to hurt Google's main solutions.

All are using a dominant position to push around big and small players ... especially the small. Things like "fast lanes" help put up barriers to entry for competition and will limit choice over time IMO. If a vendor like MSFT, Netflix, Amazon, etc. can negotiate far better rates due to volume with Comcast or Verizon or other, it gives them an unbelievable advantage to limit a dynamic market place. Similar to Walmart pushing out mom/pop stores. Prices drop ... yea. Competition is eliminated and prices rise again. This one reason why Amazon came into being. This is one reason your cable bill is now $200/month ... no competition in the local markets because barrier to entry is so high. Big companies get bigger ... choice is narrowed.

If you want $400/month cable bills, vote against net neutrality. IMO