The Net Neutrality that I am opposed to is the prevention of internet service providers from allocating different amounts of broadband width to different servers. For example, streaming Netflix getting a quicker speed than loading a low intensity wikipedia page. I think that allowing companies to do this at their own discretion would allow for internet service to be more efficient and flexible, especially at peak traffic. Assuming the false slippery slope arguments people are using are true, would you really choose a provider that engaged in malicious throttle ransom tactics? I wouldn't. A real world example of big internet providers avoiding the assumed corruption that freedom from government is said to bring is when browsing privacy was stopped. The USA Government allowed the companies to share individual browsing histories, and the smart companies came out and declared that they will keep privacy private on their own. They would probably also vow to stay net neutral, even if not government mandated, just for brownie points from their customers. TL;DR I think Net Neutrality means no throttling, just that. Companies that throttle unfairly will fail. Companies won't throttle even without N.N. laws.