While net neutrality is a valid issue, the language of that site is very "conspiracy theory"-esque and their claim of a pretty specific date has no backing besides their word. I do believe ISPs should not be able to inhibit traffic from content providers outside their network (in order to force consumers to use the ISP's content services). The US doesn't really have any laws regarding net neutrality. Some have been defeated in the past, and one is currently working its way through Congress. The FCC currently has four principles regarding the issue, and the first one states that consumers should have access to all legal content. The fourth also clearly relates to the issue of giving preference to certain content providers. These principles do not carry the full force of law, but the FCC has put them to use at times. Here they are for reference:
  1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
  2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
  3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
  4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
On the other hand, there are valid uses for some traffic control and special treatment of highly time sensitive traffic such as VoIP, gaming, etcetera might actually be a good thing for consumers. Other services which require 100% reliability such as remote surgeries could also benefit.

Both sides get very zealous about their position, but I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.