This article is correct that the proponents of Net Neutrality have purposely confused the issues. The article makes a number of mistakes, because it does not start from the basis of property rights. The real purpose of net neutrality is to allow the FCC to impose the fairness doctrine on the Internet. This will not be good for the little guy as the article implies.

What the real issue is that some services require uninterrupted bandwidth and are willing to pay for that, such as Netflix. Net Neutrality proponents want to deny the property rights of the ISP and force them to not be able to sell their bandwidth. While no doubt large companies may try to game this - Google has already been caught providing biased search results - for instance in the last presidential campaign. But if the FCC gets involved, it will mean the government decides who goes to the top of the search engines, which websites will be banished to the bottom. ISPs are fairly simple to setup and more and more options are becoming available. But if the FCC limits how they can use their property, we will see fewer people being willing to invest in this area. The answer is never to have the government decide fairness and ignore property rights, which is what Net Neutrality is about.