To voice...or not to voice?

As I was reading the first article, I came across a sentence that spurred some thought to help support the topic of net neutrality. It stated, "The Internet is being understood as an extension of or substitution for existing institutions." This was probably referring to institutions such as those established before the birth of the internet who are now ready to jump beyond curiosity and indifference and dive into the vast ocean of internet domain. Yet, when I read that word extension it made me think how the internet is a place that people can extend their ideas, concerns, and concepts into material, and become voice to their positions that can be instantly accessible to others. Since "television, popular newspapers, magazines, and photography" are the public sphere of information and current issues, are these forms of info-sharing representing EVERYONE or just a small community?
The internet is a place that the people left out of the public sphere who dwell in places such as farm-towns in Iowa or U.S. burrows, who can voice their opinions in a way that U.S. citizens can access and hear through VLOGS, YouTube, internet forwards, and MySpace Music. When web opinions reach the ears of DC, you know that the Internet is effective and can then effect the policies of legislation. After viewing Justin's YouTube post of Obama's stance on net neutrality and how "voices get squeezed out" without that neutrality, his views are reassuring to my argument that people should be allowed to voice their opinions.