Actually, repealing it
would play into the hands of censors. Net Neutrality, as policy, prevents ISPs from controlling access to content they don't own. This includes censoring that content.
Seeing the way that wiretapping and citizen surveillance is handled, I think that
anything preventing government or private entities from paying ISPs to disappear info is important. This is a legitimate reason to favor net neutrality.
On OP's article, though:
Everyone who's going to be on the internet is already on the internet.
Not the case. And service in many places is inadequate. This isn't because ISPs are struggling, it's because the technology was largely pioneered with public money and by people who never had anything to do with these corporations. The business model of companies like Comcast involves strangling smaller ISPs in order to avoid ever having to actually provide competitive service or products. The move by large ISPs to try to solicit from certain websites and from users by artificially slowing service (something they were caught doing years ago as they prepared to make their move) is representative of much of their procedure in general - with monopolies, they can actually make more providing bad service than increasing or improving service. It is the tech equivalent of
The Producers.Small businesses are opting to have a Facebook page instead of a website, and Facebook will surely pay to access every major network.
As someone with sites, I see no reason why this is something desirable. Right now people voluntarily opt to have Facebook pages rather than websites. There are a number of players who seem bent on "consumerizing" the internet further without even abandoning net neutrality - I hate that, but it's not the same as giving ISPs the right to charge me for stuff they didn't own and aren't hosting just so I can have an opportunity to reach people who I could reach before they had such a right. I hate that there's this corporate culture of classifying the internet into 'acceptable' major sites and 'unacceptable' minor or fringe ones... but enabling it by giving it legal
control in addition to its pre-existing financial advantages is wrong.
Startups would probably use a major cloud hosting service, which, again, would pay extra to access the major networks.
Gonna nitpick here - "cloud" is a buzz term for server hosting. You probably know this, but it's something I like to point out. Either way, there's no reason anyone should have to go through a "major" service just to accommodate the flawed profit model of ISP monopolies. It's incredibly bad legal policy.
The ISP's develop alternate protocols for streaming video, keep their internet service slow, and sell the sizzle of the streaming video with internet instead of the steak of faster internet.
Actually, they aren't selling "faster" internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_throttling#Comcast_Corp._v._FCCTheir intent is to throttle most users in order to sell average-speed internet for premium prices. This is what the legal fights have largely been about. There is no "faster internet" because they refuse to invest in improving their technology to an extent that could provide this.