You don't understand the concept of net neutrality. It isn't that one ISP can offer you higher speeds (which is a result of their hardware investment, and something they should expect to be able to recoup by charging a higher price for their higher service) than another. It's that the ISP you have can offer different content to you at different speeds. So maybe optimum takes $1 million from Facebook and they push that into your house at 200 mps, but little UG can't afford to pay that bribe, so that gets slowed to 10 mps (gotta free that bandwidth up for FB somehow, right?) Or maybe Netflix chooses not to pay off every ISP in the country, but Amazon does. Good luck trying to finish out the season of House of Cards.
Or maybe this is just you being you (ya' know, taking a contrary position just to start a discussion/argument). Here's a metaphor for you: What if the DOT decided the right lane of the LIE is free, and you can use that all you want, but if you want to use the middle lane you need a sticker on your car that'll cost you $500/year, and if you want to cruise in the fast lane, that's a different one that'll run you $2,500. Who needs lane neutrality, anyway? In fact, I'm thinking this could be a good cure for those folks who drive 50mph all day in the left lane. I can just hear the DOT making the argument that we need to end lane neutrality, because it will improve traffic flow, saving us all time and gas. We'd al be better off, in fact. See, it's not a matter of "taking the toll road because its faster, but I'll take the free road when I can". No, this is "There's only one road. It used to be free. Now somebody you don't know gets to decide just how fast you get to drive, and how much it's going to cost you if you want to go faster".