Anu Rangappa is a senior DNC adviser is writing to DNC national fundraiser director Jordan Kaplan on September 22, 2015 saying:
"They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party."
Kaplan then replies with: "Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it."
There are three groups of people opposed to network neutrality. 1) People who don't like government regulation in general, 2) Telecoms lobbyists and 3) People who don't understand what network neutrality is.
Obviously only the first are worth listening to, though the second are the loudest and the third are the most numerous.
And the issue with listening to the first group is that we have to do it in the right order. The principle of not having the government regulate is that the free market will take care of it, but there is currently no free market for telecommunications, in part because the government has given the incumbents access to eminent domain and a trillion dollars in government subsidies over the past century. So the order of things would have to be to first somehow have strong last-mile competition (e.g. more than 20 providers on average) and only then remove network neutrality.
The people who actually believe this also believe that last mile is not a natural monopoly. The proper way to answer it is to give them e.g. Nevada and let them prove it. Then once Nevada somehow has 20 independent last mile providers, we can do the same thing everywhere else and won't need network neutrality anymore. And if they're wrong and they fail, then we'll know for sure and the only people opposed will be the people no one should ever listen to.
In theory they could also fail because they're wrong about something else, but whose problem is that? Either they can figure out how to have competition without regulation, or they can't and we need network neutrality.
As it turns out, it doesn't matter if you're against net neutrality, it's still probably in your interest. Exceptions might include if you're a telecom rentier or an authoritarian interested in policing content.
WaPo has been central to a lot of real news in recent history. Why do you say that it is fake?
No matter which side you're on it is in our interest to not let net neutrality go down without any resistance.