Is government regulation truly needed in order to maintain net neutrality?

The debate over net neutrality typically pits proponents of an open Internet defined by an end-to-end architecture against defenders of more selective, less egalitarian routing by service providers. But in "The Durable Internet," a paper released Wednesday by the libertarian Cato Institute, Tim Lee argues that the "openists" and the "deregulationists" both rely on the same mistaken assumption: that the Internet's neutral structure won't survive without government intervention.
Lee, a Cato adjunct scholar and occasional Ars contributor (full disclosure: also an old friend), agrees with neutrality boosters that the case for "network discrimination" is "underwhelming." He makes short work of the notion that bandwidth-intensive sites or applications are somehow free-riding on downstream pipes, explaining how the "network of consensual interconnection [peering] agreements that bind the Internet together ensure that each Internet user pays a fair share of the total costs of running the network." And he argues that packet discrimination is unlikely to be either effective or economical as a means of managing network congestion or guaranteeing quality-of-service for low-latency applications like VoIP telephony.

Information found at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081114-is-government-regulation-needed-to-ensure-net-neutrality.html

So, Lee believes that if the government does not keep tabs on the internet, the companies in control of the internet's "Net Neutralitism" will eventually go out of whack. Thus, he believes that in order to keep the internet providers in check, that the government is absolutely needed 100% of the time to oversee and supervise the companies who are charging people to use their specific type of internet providings.