On the principle basis of Property Rights which are reasonably valid and beneficial, ISP's have total freedom to demand better prices from bigger corporation for their larger websites.
But I believe that it should be left to be decided by Market forces.
In a bargain, the seller and buyer both have equal rights to decide for a mutually beneficial free-trade.

I oppose any law over net-neutrality because any such law is against Individual freedom of a seller and it will ultimately Destroy the freedom of buyer too.

As gagged_louis suggested the common (but false) fear regarding the issue that the small and obscure sites won't get proper usual usage benefits, is just a propaganda of these bigger sites. Its not like ISp will reduce facilities for the common non-beneficial users, it is just that ISPs will try to innovate to give better facilities for the higher or bigger users and hence will demand for higherr price for better facilities.
Yet, no ISp can force any bigger website with large web-content to buy the slot of special facilities. Neither can any website or even public or government force ISP's to not to try for price discriminations for various usages. But it should remain on the basis of free-market system.
Any interference of Government will destroy the net.
SO although I am willing to safeguard the net, but i Strongly oppose the Idea of net-neutrality, and I consider Tania Derveaux just another attention seeking bitch with no objective idea of what she is saying or seeking for. She is trying to reiterate and shout something which is fundamentally against Individual freedom as pro-liberty.
I simply and strongly oppose any idea of bringing any law related to Net Neutrality.