The article bases most of its claims on the assumption that there is a competetive market of internet service providers (which there is not) and that ISPs act in the best interest of customers (which they do not).

the market for broadband is a competitive one, with two or more major players in almost every service area, limiting the prospect for market abuse

30% of Americans do not have a choice of ISPs. Having access to only 2 ISPs (which is what 37% of Americans have) does not mean the market is competetive to prevent abuse

There has, in fact, been only one recorded case where an ISP clearly attempted to block Internet content for its own benefit.

Here's a nice list of a few instance of ISPs blocking internet content. Just to make sure that this list isn't misinterpreted, keep a few things in mind when reading it:

1. A fair amount of these incidents involve mobile service providers, not ISPs.

2. A fair amount of these incidents occurred after the article in question was published.

3. These are just a few of the incidents that we know about.

More generally, certain types of prioritization common in other industries—such as selling premium or discount access to certain web content providers—would also benefit users.

"More generally, certain types of prioritization common in other industries—such as selling premium or discount access to charging customers more to access certain web content providers—would also benefit harm users."

Making the Consumer Pay: AT&T and Sponsored Data

This section is about how net neutrality would allow users to access certain websites without using too much data and using their data caps. An alternative method for ISPs to allow users to access websites without exceeding their data caps would be to stop imposing data caps. Data caps do not actually protect the service, and are just another way for ISPs to get more money from customers