“Net Neutrality” debate is not (at least, not within the ‘circles’ I move in, nor it ‘ought to be’) about ‘cheap’ or ‘flat rate’ Internet access. As far as I am concerned, that is a ‘non-issue’: I pay for a service, I am willing to pay for the service, and I expect to receive service appropriate to the rate I pay. No problems there.

“Net Neutrality” is about something else altogether: it is about preventing ISP providers from exercising undue control over the content (not quantity - if properly paid for).

Let me give you an example:
Most ISP have divisions that provide services other than just the ‘Internet pipeline’. My internet provider is one of these: they have a division which rents movies and videos. Now, there is a company which has established a completely legal, copyright-obeying business which sells movies over the internet - and which (once paid for) can be downloaded using the BitTorrents protocol.

Even though I pay for the highest level of service, and am willing to pay extra if I use more bandwidth than the ‘upper limit’, I am prevented from using this legal online service, because my ISP has chosen to modulate their traffic by disrupting BitTorrents - protocol messages (which, by the way, may include impersonating my computer, sending out false flags that end the transmission).

In effect, my ISP’s ‘pipeline’ division is successfully preventing me from legally purchasing a service (even if I wish to pay them to deliver it) from a direct competitor of my ISP’s ‘movie rental’ division…..

That would be sort of like the post office which deliveres letters deciding arbitrarily that it will only deliver letters (even though they contain the correct stamps and the postage has been paid according to rules) that are in the envelopes its outlets sell, because it wants to boost its stationery sales. Any properly mailed letters in other types of envelopes woud simply be discarded….and then did not tell anyone about it - people would only find out when their letters went missing…

It is THESE practices that the “Net Neutrality” debate is addressing - and they do need to be addressed….

“Regulations breed more regulations” — Slippery slope

“The Internet is private property” — Private property can be regulated.

“all based on technology developed using public money.” Sounds like someone is angry the government misinvested his funds. Hmm maybe we should focus our efforts on that instead of enslaving ISPs to rules that will cut their ability to profit and provide good service.

“No extra federal surveillance is needed to ensure net neutrality as you claim.” Whew, for a minute there I thought you were going to counter his claim with facts. Silly me. What would be the point of passing Net Neutrality if the government didn’t surveill traffic?

“All that’s needed is to keep things exactly the way they are.” Then why pass the law?

“…all based on technology developed using public money.” That sounds like a good reason to disallow the government to invest public money into anything.

“No extra federal surveillance is needed to ensure net neutrality as you claim.” Good thing you brought all those facts to counter his claim, rather than just asserting an opposing claim.