Considering in the 20+ years of the Internet, there has been no "Net Neutrality" and everything has worked fine without government regulation.
Also, the thought that "No Net Neutrality" = Loss of rights is very, very, very wrong.
First, it totally skews the idea of rights and freedoms. You may lose certain "freedom" on the Internet, but only on the Internet. In most cases, ISP's are private businesses, not public areas. If a private business, though with a very public presence (think big discount stores or supermarkets) do not want people doing certain actions using their resources, they can block it.
Secondly, the freedoms as described in this article are trivial in impact. Freedom of choice? If I choose to shop at local businesses, so Internet business choices mean nothing to me. Where I live, I can not shop at Macy's or Nordstrom's because neither of those stores are located within 100 miles from me. Does that mean I do not have freedom of choice? According to this article it does. I suppose we should have government regulation that requires a particular store to be conveniently available to everyone in the country regardless of where they live?
I could go on, but you get the point. If you don't get the point, then you need to look past the FUD and go outside where there is fresh air and sunlight, and look at reality.
The best cure for the doomsday prediction of this article is not "Net Neutrality," but an increase in competition for the ISP's. In most cities, the ISP's have agreements with the local governments that give them a government sanctioned monopoly, and competing services can not enter the market. Take that away, give customer's more choices for ISP's, and the market will continue to provide the better services.