here's what I posted:
This is the worst argument against net neutrality, ever. You're comparing the internet to newspapers and airlines. Let's think about this for a second.
Newspapers are read-only media that do nothing but provide information. No business-critical services are built around a newspaper, except for the publisher of said newspaper. If my newspaper could, say, allow people to purchase my product through it directly or allow people to interact with my ad, then maybe they could be comparable. This is a bad metaphor.
Next you compare the internet to airlines, which is laughable. Comparing first-class service on an airline to maybe that of a train is comparable, but not the internet. Sure, paying for faster service is tenable, but for BETTER service, or simply access? If I don't want better service on a plane, I will still end up at my destination. However, without net neutrality, UNLESS I pay for better service, I can't necessarily get to my destination.
Unless you have something better than these examples for metaphors, I suggest you rethink your arguments.