You may have read this piece by David Honig or this post by Alex Tabarrok that links to him.
Do you have a cell phone? How would you like it if the FCC required you to pay an extra $20 a month to get movie downloads, whether you want them not, or to allow your kids to access violent video games or adult content, whether you want them to or not, just so everyone would get what the government considers to be “the full Internet experience?” What if you’re low income, and you’d rather spend that $20 on books? Or warm clothes? Or food?
My point has already been made by people in the comments and elsewhere, but I like repeating other people:
Net neutrality does not imply that poor people have to subsidize people who use a lot of bandwidth. There is no reason to force anyone to pay an extra $20 a month for more bandwidth or unlimited bandwidth. Most of the costs of running a network are fixed costs and it is quite reasonable and non-evil to allocate those costs in such a way that people who use the network the most also pay the most.
What is unreasonable and harmful is to discriminate by content, by charging someone more simply because they watch video or, even worse, because they watch video not made by a conglomerate that also owns the internet provider, rather than charging them more because they use more bandwidth.