A couple of points come to mind.
There is no such thing as true net neutrality:
What is net neutrality? It is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favouring or blocking particular products or websites. Thus they should not discriminate against data packets.
ISP’s are already selectively speeding up or slowing down data packets depending on the subscriber. The data packets of a person who has done 3G recharge is not choked while the data packets of a poorer person who does a 2G recharge is slowed down.
Therefore, I could equally argue that, net neutrality exponents are hypocrites who cry foul only when a corporate company foots the internet bill of someone so that it can reap commercial benefits without doing anything illegal. I could say that it is middle class hypocrisy.
It’s unfavorable to the poor
Net neutrality exponents are denying the poor people access to what few websites they can access through basic providers. True, currently many websites are not on offer. But that doesn’t mean they won’t be added later. Even if they aren’t, can’t the existing ones on offer be used by them to empower themselves? Why should a free offering of facebook be so shunned?
The net neutrality exponents are crying exploitation of the poor people in the name of free internet. I could say that they are patronising the poor as incapable of making a decision of their own. No one needs to dictate to me what is good or bad for me. I can chose for myself. Who are you to tell me that free facebook is a bad thing for me?
For example, Facebook has itself acted as a technology enabler for thousands of businesses. There are freelance photographers, small and medium businesses who court business via this platform. It also has educational content which too can be empowering. So why shun the non-neutral internet? What gives the net-neutrality exponents more right to decide on what the poor wants? It is not that they are forced into the scheme. Isn’t there a government and regulators to make sure that such exploitation doesn’t happen?
It’s suppressing competition
Why not spur competition by allowing companies to decide policies based on the market? After all, that is the great theme of this century, isn’t it?
Internet is already fragmented
Another argument by the net neutrality exponents is that it will lead to fragmentation of the internet. But, isn’t the internet already fragmented as it is? We have deep web, dark web, mililtary networks, college networks and what not. A gazillion private fragmented spaces are there. I could equally argue that fragmentation of the internet is a basic feature of it. Why fear one more layer of fragmentation?
There is no such thing as a right stance in the debate on net neutrality. Both sides have it’s own interests. There are vested interests on both sides. Both arguments have its merits and demerits. It is not true that net neutrality proponents are true blue knights, while those who argue against it are death eaters.
Just like I listed arguments against net neutrality, I could list arguments for net neutrality too. Nothing is in black and white.