This a not a relevant analogy to the net neutrality debate. There is no one company that owns the entire Internet. They have their networks, and peer with other networks, including their competitors. Without that relationship the Internet doesn't work.

Likewise, to use your comparison to gas pipeline: ISPs already charge different rates for a variety of throughput levels (i.e., download/upload speeds) and bandwidth (data use). There is nothing in the current net neutrality rules that prevents them from doing that. They are not required to provide unlimited bandwidth to customers at no additional cost.

What they are NOT allowed to do under current net neutrality rules is prioritize certain types of traffic or charge customers or sites at different rates for access to particular sites or particular traffic. For example, they can't charge you an additional fee to access Facebook or Netflix. Repealing the standing net neutrality rules WOULD allow ISPs to charge these sites and YOU additional fees to access certain sites or BLOCK THEIR ACCESS ENTIRELY. Essentially, they will be able to charge YOU more money without providing ANY additional benefit whatsoever.

Moreover, many of the largest ISPs--Comcast in particular--also have their own media companies and content delivery networks (e.g. Comcast owns NBC/Universal). Repealing net neutrality rules will allow them to prioritize their own content traffic while charging you additional fees to access a competitors site (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, etc.). Or they could block them altogether. This is monopolistic on its face. It will also put a choke hold on the explosion of innovation that open access to the Internet has created over the last three decades.

There is really no debate to be had as a consumer/citizen. This is a simple money/power grab by large ISPs to be able to charge you more for less, as well as the authority to decide what and whose content you should or should not be allowed to access.