One of the main arguments people have against net neutrality is that it's anti-competitive. If you're in favour of a small government/free market state net neutrality rubs you up the wrong way.
Let's say one company starts limiting speeds or charging to access certain content, people will simply switch to one of their competitors. The new income from charging customers/websites for priority will eventually fall short of the income lost by losing costumers to the competition, so the company will have a strong incentive to revert their policies back to ones similar to today (or not change them in the first place).
You still get a neutral internet, but without any Government interference.
However, while the competition introduced by a free market is a fantastic way of keeping companies in check on paper (and often in the real world too!) in this case it doesn't work, for a very simple reason: If you look closely there isn't actually any real competition between ISPs in the US; and because of the monopolies on the required infrastructure etc it will be incredibly hard to introduce real competition to that market, not least without massive government interference.
To paraphrase a famous quote: "Net neutrality laws are the worst solution, apart from all the other ones"
Whatever your political leanings there really is no winner here except the ISPs.