The networks rightly point out that they invested lots of money in their infrastructure, and argue that therefore they should be able to do whatever they want with it.

Net neutrality proponents would reply that the public has invested in the network, too: we've allocated a scarce resource, like space on our utility poles or under our roads, to the ISP. (Not to mention friendly policies, actual subsidies, etc.) Only a limited number of wires can be put on a pole or under a road.

If an ISP can provide service without using any scarce public resources, they should be able to sidestep regulations. But I can't think of a way to do that: it's either physical space or radio spectrum, neither of which is infinite.

Net neutrality legislation may be a bad idea; I don't pretend to understand all of the issues involved. I would certainly be irritated if my tax dollars subsidized an ISPs infrastructure, and my road was torn up to lay their cable, and they then took that service and throttled YouTube in an effort to give their own video service an advantage.

But maybe that's a boogeyman argument and such things wouldn't happen.