There are historic instances of telecommunications NON-neutrality to consider, too.
I favor internet neutrality.
Ben Franklin, as a printer in the colonies, knew the danger of selection in telecommunication;
his competitor (Bradford) in Philadelphia was also the local postmaster.
Bradford's publications were sent by post, but as for Ben's printed work
" what I did send was by bribing the riders, who took them privately,
Bradford being unkind enough to forbid it"
Our constitution was written to make telecommunication a priority of the new federal government,
"to establish post offices and post roads", and our first postmaster-general, Ben Franklin,
saw to it that postal regulations forbade favoritism. He wanted the carriers to remain
neutral. It worked well.
At the dawn of telephonic communication, a similar circumstance came up: an undertaker
thought his business suffered because a telephone operator was related to a competitor.
Mr. Strowger invented a gizmo, the Strowger Switch, that allowed a caller to connect
without talking to an operator (and dial phones worked on this principle for years).
Again, the solution to Mr. Strowger's problem was to keep telecommunications
neutral; we have all enjoyed the benefits for so long, that it seems quaint that
this ever WAS a problem.
So, at least twice before in history we have seen preference in telecommunications,
executed by carriers who had mixed motives (usually related to a profit scheme)
which caused anguish to the people of this country. Any worthy Federal Communications
Commission should exert itself to ensure that the customary fairness of
messaging is maintained into the foreseeable future. I will be watching.