This whole fallacious argument is riddled with strawmen and fallacious arguments. They attempt to equate wireless access with internet access. They talk about

This whole fallacious argument is riddled with strawmen and fallacious arguments. They attempt to equate wireless access with internet access. They talk about "the expectations that we have as consumers" when it comes to the internet as if "consumers" are some sort of monolith. Worst of all, they describe net neutrality solely as a bandwith issue and not one of access. Without net neutrality laws Comcast and other ISPs are under no obligation to make all of the "internet" available to you, at any price. Then will be free to simply block access to websites and other internet services they don't like, for any reason at all, no matter how much you are willing to pay. Net neutrality isn't just about bandwith and packet prioritization - its about access. There is simply no "free market" argument to be made about any ISP or cable company that doesn't own all its infrastructure (including all the land that its wires and cables run through) or one that uses the public spectrum. The only reason that the cable company is able to put a pole in my backyard or run a wire over my property is government regulation. You can't credibly decry net neutrality (ie government regulation of your "private business"), when the very existence of your "private business" depends on government regulation to operate.