The danger is that once federal regulation is admitted as to web content source, it could become intrusive and endorse or even require some forms of discrimination. For example, government, educational, and credential news providers might be given the highest priority or never charged, with providers of commentary like FR and other popular conservative web sites disfavored as to priority and required to pay to get their content through on a fast and reliable basis.
Indeed, if net neutrality regulation is permitted, rules could be made so that web content providers had to pay ISPs based on data load, with higher charges based on specific content and the amount of data they transmit. Some content providers might even be barred from the Internet, such as web sites that were insufficiently deferential to Islam or that provided evidence of corruption against political figures.
Of course, ISPs dislike net neutrality for commercial reasons. They seem to want to charge extra to major sources of data like Hulu and Netflix. There is some justification for this because the heaviest data providers tend to drive the demand for investment in more Internet capacity. Yet even on a purely commercial basis, ISPs might also charge nonprofit sites like FR because they are popular and generate relatively high levels of data use.
Shows, ironically, that "neutrality" really does not exist. Or rather, to be neutral & involved. Everything is subjective.
The only way to stay neutral is to butt out.