I've only found one article about Net Neutrality that clearly explains the case in favor *and* the case against, gives actual quotations from articulate and high-profile proponents *and* opponents, and does not attempt to force the reader into agreeing with one side of the issue.  For anyone who feels you are missing some orientation to why this is even under debate...

> ...why would anyone be *against* this?  —Shog9

...I *highly* recommend [**"A Tangled Web"**](http://www.freedommag.org/issue/201506-net-freedom/a-tangled-web.html) by Price Colman.

If you're in a hurry, just read the section headed "Good, Bad and Ugly."\*

------

Here is one excerpt, just to show the *reservations* that are held by some high profile *proponents* of net neutrality.  (Emphasis added.)

> Many in the tech sector are leery of government and regulatory intrusion. While they endorse the “bright line” and transparency rules, they have reservations about other aspects of the order.
>
> “I think the order did the right thing,” said Corynne McSherry of Electronic Frontier Foundation, a longtime advocate of Net Neutrality and the protection of personal privacy on the Net.
>
> For the EFF, Net Neutrality is “pretty fundamental,” McSherry said. “Think of all the ways in which we use the Internet—to organize, communicate, get jobs, get educated. We depend on the Internet for so many things. That means we need a fair Internet.”
>
> But, she says, the order gives the FCC leeway to crack down on ISPs’ practices that violate the spirit of the order, but aren’t specifically addressed in the order. That worries her.
>
> “**It seems like [the FCC] has given itself a bigger window for overregulation.** The signal to us is that we have to pressure the FCC to do the right thing.”

------

**Personally, I am in favor of Net Neutrality,** but I regard the FCC itself as a necessary evil that must be kept closely in check.  I do *not* trust government appointees to "do the right thing" and I find it odd when people loudly arguing that corporate executives are "evil" and are "only profit-driven," place implicit trust in government appointees to rein in such evil tendencies.  "Who will watch the watchers?"

I am also informed enough to know that **there are many aspects of FCC regulation that I *don't* understand,** and I am leery of oversimplification, especially by those who *themselves* fail to see other points of view.

A call to action **without a commensurate call to *get informed*,** I would regard as a disservice.

That said...if you want to make a blog post such as you describe, I think that sounds like a wonderful idea.  Just, please:

1. Avoid the embarrassing ad hominem attacks on those who disagree that imbue so many of the answers on this very page.  This is a very multi-faceted issue.
2. Avoid inflammatory language (which should go without saying).
3. Avoid oversimplifying the issue.
4. Please make some effort to really consider and understand opposing views, and be sure you are not presenting "straw man" arguments in the guise of "presenting both sides."  The evil "fast lane" scenarios are not seriously advanced *by anyone* (and certainly no one high profile) as a desirable future.

> Well, I'm not gonna lie - I think revoking the current rules is a bad idea, and I'm gonna say that. I'm *not* gonna say you suck if you're against 'em, but I *am* gonna ask folks to come here and elaborate on their reasoning.  —Shog9

Although I *am* in favor of Net Neutrality, I'm in favor with certain reservations.  I have hereby elaborated upon my reasoning.  :)

----

<sub>\*If you're writing a lengthy blog post on the subject, though, you don't qualify as "in a hurry."  ;)</sub>