I don't follow this closely, but is this really the "against" position? I thought the premise was less that ISPs would offer tiered packages to the consumer, and more that ISPs would do deals with content companies, such that the consumer just sees slower speeds to sites that didn't pay up (and has no say in the matter apart from finding a new ISP (hah!)).
And that has nothing to do with NetNeutrality™. In fact NetNeutrality™ put in place an expensive regulatory process that often priced out small competitors.
Could you please show how Net Neutrality was an expensive regulatory process. And then also show how it priced out small ISPs? Lastly, how is Net Neutrality as a concept a trademark?
Without above it comes over as an opinion, not fact.
You may not agree with either conclusion, but you must admit that it is the most weakly dismissed argument against added regulations.
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-ag...
The post you're replying to didn't suggest it does. Please don't do that thing people do where they pick out some random bit of a post to reply to as a hook to make an unrelated argument for the side they prefer.