In the US, we're really, really bad at nuance. We like everything to be black and white and simple. Net Neutrality is a nice simple concept that people still don't understand, trying to address an extremely complicated situation that very few people, especially our lawmakers, seem to grasp.
Here's an example of two ridiculous extremes. You make an emergency 911 call to a crowded cell tower. Under an absolute interpretation of net neutrality with no exceptions, the tower would not be allowed to prioritize your call, even if it could. (Which right now, it can't, because nobody thought of it when cell towers were originally being designed.) If there's too much traffic, you simply won't get through. This happens all the time right now already, but under absolute NN, they can't even add the capability.
Now here's the other ridiculous extreme, no neutrality whatsoever, no exceptions and no regulations. Your ISP can block access to any service they like, including 911. Or they could charge premium service rates, and add a $1000 surcharge to make a 911 call. Yes, I know there are already existing laws that prevent this, I'm talking about a universal rejection of NN as an ideological absolute.
If it has to be all or nothing, I'd go with the first. It doesn't have to be all or nothing though. If the public and our lawmakers can make reasonable exceptions. Just like any other system, absolutes just go too far. And relying on the public sector to rein themselves in has a poor track record:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxfire
That's the company that colluded with ISP's to hijack search results. Originally, they just did the usual mistyped URL searches. Then they started doing actual search substitutions. Ie, you go to google or bing or yahoo and search for "refrigerator" and it would filter your results. Sponsored links from its partners would be inserted at the top, and results for competitors would be removed entirely. Incidents like this were exactly what prompted the FCC guidelines, which are now being stripped.