Honestly net neutrality isn't so black and white and the FCC actually usually does a pretty solid job here of defending the consumers on internet related issues. While the internet is not the property of a single entity the connection to it is. It costs billions of dollars to build, maintain and upgrade the infrastructure to the internet so by no means can it be free. Also I think people here are missing some key points from that article.
First, it is companies, mostly those such as netflix, amazon prime, and sites with very heavy internet traffic that would have to pay more. Reason being largely because the most data heavy traffic on the internet is all the videos people are streaming, especially HD videos. If I recall correctly from a few years back I had saw that video streaming was accounting for some 60% of total internet traffic. That is a lot of data coming through the ISP's infrastructure potentially slowing down the rest of the internet traffic. In order to prevent that millions of dollars go into upgrading and expanding their infrastructure constantly to support the increasing demand put on their network by us the consumers. By forcing companies with high data output to pay for more of that infrastructure it could actually help prevent the ISP's from turning around and having to raise their consumer rates to pay for the infrastructure improvements.
Second, this has only been approved for a step forward in which the FCC has opened it up for open communication and discussion in order to better understand what the consumers and other businesses think about it. The FCC has a job to protect us, the consumers, and they are asking us, the consumers, what we think about this issue, that kind of transparency from a federal agency is more than you usually get.
Third, it says that the FCC will intervene to prevent ISP's from throttling sites and will make sure us the consumers aren't negatively impacted in any way. They won't allow any content blocking and to pull a direct quote,
"There is one Internet. It must be fast, it must be robust, and it must be open," Wheeler said. "The prospect of a gatekeeper choosing winners and losers on the Internet is unacceptable."
So really pending further investigation and close watch by the FCC so long as the prices for the businesses are at a fair and reasonable rate I see no reason they shouldn't have to pay more money if they want a faster connection, so long as the baseline speeds stay the same across the board. Unfortunately it doesn't really say in detail what exactly the companies will be paying for or how the ISP's will do this.
I am not against this, just cautious of this.
If you want a true net neutrality issue to be concerned with then you need to follow the TPP. It has a greater potential for negatively impacting the internet globally:
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
"Sir, we are surrounded!"
"Excellent! That means we can attack in any direction!"
Former: Councilor, Secretary of State, Academy Headmaster, BoI Editor In Chief, Postmaster General,
Diplomacy Director, Diplomat, Express Delivery Staff, RADAR (SWAG), Mentor, Recruiter,
Echo CO, Echo XO, Delta XO, Alpha MS, Mentor Staff, Academy Staff, Vault (Mattech)
(TLDR: No Longer Relevant)