I like that analogy. I'm not convinced the internet is a public good or that ISPs should be judged as utility companies, but at least I understand the argument a bit better now. "Net neutrality" is a dangerous term because it could imply something other than what it means. Would much prefer never to see it in a headline again.
I see the ability for us citizens to use the internet unfettered as important as their unfettered use of roads. IMO it is now a fundamental component of modern civil society. In that sense, I think 'Net Neutrality' is an appropriate term. I don't want to see my bandwidth determined by content. On a related note, IMHO the US needs to break out of the public/private debate, and concentrate more on the ends than the means. I strongly believe that it is a conveniently simplistic debate that has been co-opted and promoted by our bipolar political infrastructure. IMO we need to re-imagine both government and private entities, with a eye toward outcomes rather than ideological consistency. I worry that we argue about the wrong things, and let better futures pass us by.
I disagree. Moderates are not insignificant, but moderates often become disinterested in both of the two extremist parties. Although negative campaigns portraying the other party's extremism can counteract this. But I think extremism is more often rewarded in practice. For example, the rallying Fundamentalist Christian demographic in 2000, and the radically extremist Tea Party in 2010.