No. This predicates meaningful access to the internet on your socioeconomic status, further entrenching extant divisions. Educational material is increasingly

No. This predicates meaningful access to the internet on your socioeconomic status, further entrenching extant divisions. Educational material is increasingly being delivered in video form. What happens, e.g., to poor families have to choose between paying the electric bill, or buying food, or buying enough download capacity that their kid can learn? But that's not even the real issue. The big problem with a non-neutral internet is the barrier to entry imposed on non-incumbent players. Netflix has the money (and customer base) to absorb any "pay to play" costs imposed by the end-user's ISP. Whiz-Bang Startup Streaming Service doesn't, unless they take more funding, meaning the people who created the thing own less of it, and all of that additional money goes to the incumbent ISPs. I submit that this is an intentional outcome of the policy.