Can anyone logically refute this article against Net Neutrality regulation?

The claim is that ISPs won't see it in their best interest to restrict access to particular content, or to charge premiums. That's inconsistent with their observed behavior (e.g., charging extra for mobile phone tethering, even though shipping packets costs them the same whether or not the phone ships them three feet further to a laptop). It's also inconsistent with their expressed desires (viz., for instance, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre whining about Google and Yahoo wanting to "use [our] pipes free" --- even though the pipes in question were already paid for by customers who thought they had every right to use them to access Google content).

For more on the relevant history, I recommend "The Master Switch" by Tim Wu, or "The Creation of the Media" by Paul Starr.

Cite on the Whitacre quote: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ip-telephony/how-google-can-tell-e...

Right now it might be true that it is in the best interest for ISP to not restrict access to particular content. This may not be true down the road. It won't be true if the ISPs form a cartel.

ISPs may decide that it is best to be content with their percent of the market and instead of competing with each other to gain market share it's better to nickel and dime consumers.

The cost of legislating net neutrality is quite low and the consequences of cartel pricing are quite damaging. Therefore it makes sense to regulate now rather than later.

Both sides say they want to keep the Internet free and open. Which side is lying?