I think you may have a warped view of the problems that lack of Net Neutrality would bring. Content creation, and ... errr.. "participation in a two-way flow of information" is not particularly served by Net Neutrality. Writing and consuming blogs, IMs, twitter comments, emails, forum posts and reddit comments would be virtually unchanged since those are all bandwidth-cap friendly activities and don't particularly need a large pipe anyway ( A basic 5MB connection is more than enough ). Communication apps such as Skype and Hangouts may be affected (though they don't consume
that much bandwidth and also don't require a particularly fat pipe). However most are controlled by big conglomerates who would be willing to pay the telecom toll and so may actually work better in a non-neutral internet.
HD Video streaming services and software downloads (e.g. via Steam or Xbox) are probably the things most affect by Net Neutrality, especially since telecoms have competing services and those types of services benefit immensely from unlimited caps and lots of bandwidth.
So I'm still confused as to what argument you're trying to make. You're hand-waving quite a bit trying to position it as a grave ethical issue and I just don't see it. Again, I think Net Neutrality should be the law of the land. It benefits everyone (except telecoms) and it's been a huge success so far. Let's keep it.
HD Video streaming services and software downloads (e.g. via Steam or Xbox) are probably the things most affect by Net Neutrality, especially since telecoms have competing services and those types of services benefit immensely from unlimited caps and lots of bandwidth.
So I'm still confused as to what argument you're trying to make. You're hand-waving quite a bit trying to position it as a grave ethical issue and I just don't see it. Again, I think Net Neutrality should be the law of the land. It benefits everyone (except telecoms) and it's been a huge success so far. Let's keep it.