Not really. Richer people can use toll roads while the poor might take a longer route that doesn't cost money. The poor might follow laws that the rich break because they can afford to pay the fines. But I think this is approaching the limits of the analogy's usefulness.
Anyone can use toll roads - it doesn't matter what car you drive, where you came from, or where you're going, the price is the same for everyone. Price per mile, flat rate, whatever - if it's non-discriminatory, it's neutral!
Non-neutrality is when a toll road charges more because of the car you drive, where you came from, what you're carrying, or where you're headed - or letting certain people jump the queue based on those criteria.
It's not OK to give a discount to BMW drivers because they drive a BMW. If BMW drivers are the only ones that can afford the price - that's OK. But if a Corolla driver comes along and pays the price, they better get exactly the same service.
(The analogy does break down at vehicle weight - cars can be long/short and heavy/light, packets are only long/short)
What you're decribing plainly doesn't happen. That's part of why people buy fancier cars in the first place - to be treated better by those who judge them on it.
But that's also the part I don't really care about. I was objecting specifically to the original point that rich people shouldn't be able to buy better treatment.
It doesn't matter if you have a Ferrari or a Corolla - the streets don't care. Everyone can use the street and must follow the same laws.
If you have a Ferrari (gigabit internet), you bought the ability to accelerate quicker and go faster... But the same laws apply.
Biased internet is paying to have every light green and kick people off the road...