I stand hard with the line in that article. There are also functional arguments against Net Neutrality, such as the Netflix argument, which I can go into detail about if people are interested.
Merriam-Webster defines Freedom as
the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action and defines Rule as
a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct.
By those definitions, a rule is contrary to freedom. Don't get me wrong, I know that's a simplification of the matter, but you're arguing that you get more freedom with more rules, which is absolutely wrong.
Hypothetical. There are no don't kill people laws. Meaning, you can go around killing people all you want. Are you more free? Yes, because there is no consequence for killing someone. Are you more safe? No, the likelihood of someone killing you just skyrocketed.
What @turin231 is confusing is safety from abuse and freedom to do what you want. It's an easy mistake to make, but it's a dangerous one at that.
I won't be surprised if this happens. Deregulation is really the only thing that can level the playing field. See the Netflix example.
I'd say it's less about controlling free speech as it is setting reasonable expectations of what you'll hear on a broadcast.
The FCC has rules about what can be broadcast (let's focus on TV and Radio, because it's easier to illustrate) in terms of decency. They regulate speech to a certain standard of decency on live broadcasts that reach millions because it's nearly impossible to prevent children from being exposed to it. Would you want your 12 year old child to see a sex scene on sesame street?
Calling Trump "Vladimir Putin's cocksocket" is a recent example of what I'd call indecency. Is it funny? Yes. Is it offensive? Depends on your political views. Is it something you want your 12 year old child to hear? No. I think we can all agree on that.
This is a misrepresentation of what's being offered, in my understanding. Before we can talk about if it impedes free speech, we need to fully understand the ask.
They're asking the FCC to prevent companies from doing things to improve performance of their service. Think Youtube or Netflix caching servers, private backhauls into a datacenter, that sort of thing.
While that doesn't make all traffic equal, it doesn't hurt non-backhauled or non-cached data. In fact, the way I see it, it reduces the public internet bandwidth that the ISP has to service every other server on the internet, which in effect, allows the other services better connectivity. The only time this wouldn't happen is if they don't upgrade their public infrastructure, but that's a whole other issue that won't happen for reasons that are quite complicated that I can get into later.
In essence, what I'm saying is that what they're asking the FCC to do in "not allowing fast lanes" will not obstruct freedom of speech and will not hurt anyone except companies that use a significant amount (10%+ of the ISP's backbone bandwidth) who do not want to set up fast lanes. And honestly, if you're generating 10's of tbps of bandwidth on a normal day, you're either making enough money to set up backhauls and caching servers or your business model isn't good enough and you're bound to fail anyways.
Dammit, I started out replying to one person and got carried away. This is what happens when you're frustrated about something, folks.