The article, when read carefully, seems quite disingenuous, because given the way the points are carefully phrased to sound sensible while actually being wrong, it is hard to believe that the author actually believes the argument themselves.

Going through it point by point:

* Their first argument against is that it is hard to define network discrimination. But it really isn't, and I can define it in one sentence: routing network packets differently depending on anything other than header information specifically designed for routers to process (IP headers in the case of Internet Protocol), or routing outgoing traffic based on destination addresses with the intention of deliberately slowing traffic to some destinations but not others.

* 2 - to paraphrase "Internet access is not a right, so we shouldn't protect it". The reality is that so much human communication, including participation in democratic processes and a huge part of the economy happens online, and so it is reasonable to consider it a human right. The fact that it is relatively new doesn't change that.

* 3 - To paraphrase "Network discrimination can be good, because it lets operators:

Stop immoral practices like spamming or 'hacking'"
(presumably they mean cracking). That some people might do bad things not a good reason to censor the Internet. Favouring downloads over uploads for technical reasons - that is not really within the scope of network neutrality.

Conserve bandwidth - they give examples about usage caps, which are content neutral so outside of the scope of network neutrality. Specifically trying to slow certain applications, relative to another, is not necessary to limit bandwidth usage in a neutral way.

Promote brands - this is exactly why network neutrality is needed - network operators shouldn't be able to exploit their market position as gatekeeper to the Internet to favour one company over another.

Preventing 'theft' of service - except that if I pay for bandwidth, it is not theft to use it however I like, including allowing others to use it. Another good argument for network neutrality, not against.

Implementing a variety of network access charges to help to recover costs - ISPs can make money charging users for bandwidth in a non-discriminatory fashion, so there is no need for them to exploit their market position to charge people who aren't even connected to the network as well - and stopping them from doing that is a legitimate aim of network neutrality.

* 4 - to paraphrase "consumers might want more than a dumb pipe from their ISP, and if they go too far, the market will take care of it"; ISPs can offer services which are optional to consumers - that isn't a network neutrality issue, it only is when they become compulsory (e.g. you must use our nameservers) that it is. No consumer wants to be forced - at best they will tolerate it or it will make no difference.

* 5 - to paraphrase, "the market will sort it out". The market can't sort it out, because there are high barriers to entry, it is a finite market, and so the market is not infinitely efficient (and in some areas approaches a monopoly), and in practice there is little room for consumer choice influencing Internet markets except with regards to price, advertising, and to some extent reliability. While consumers benefit from network neutrality, very few are in a position to take this into account when choosing services.

* 6 - To paraphrase "ISPs should be free to put whatever they want in their contracts". The reality is that 'freedom of contract' is not fair when there is a huge difference in bargaining power, the markets can't sort it out for the reasons discussed above, and government intervention is appropriate.

* 7 - To paraphrase, "Network operators own their equipment and should be able to do what they like with it". That is like saying gun owners should be able to do what they like with their gun, even shoot people. It is reasonable to put in place laws against certain types of unreasonable exploitation of a market position, and property rights don't extend to using the property to break those reasonable laws. The argument here seems particularly disingenuous.

* 8 - To paraphrase, "network neutrality will discourage innovation and investment". The reality is that network operators can still profit from charging users for access - and that is enough to encourage investment. The main limit on ISPs profits is likely to be competition, and all ISPs are subject to the same laws - so no service that was profitable without network neutrality is likely to become unprofitable because of network neutrality.

* 9 - to paraphrase "introducing laws around the Internet will encourage players with a special interest to try to game the system". There is an obvious and simple solution to this one - transparency and openness in decision making. Gaming works both ways - gaming to not introduce network neutrality because it is in corporate interests anyway.

* 10 - to paraphrase - "putting in place Network Neutrality laws will start down a slippery slope towards government control of the network". Nothing specific to any network neutrality law makes it easier to change laws around the Internet later, so the argument is wrong. Unjustified corporate and government interference in network neutrality are equally big issues, and network neutrality fixes one of the problems and makes no difference to the other one.

All in all, none of their arguments stack up.