It hard to believe so many people were sucked in by the title.

Types of argument to help decide, net neutrality for or against::

1. Fairness. The only person with a proper understanding of fairness is me, so, regulators would be unable to do it.
2. Neutrality, as for point 1. above.
3. Can it work? Control of customer service speed may work if there are tricky definitions and complex technology used, so costs go up. There would be more work for regulators, this is a good thing for regulators.
4. Will, in the end, all customers get the same speed? No chance. Companies may set up a range of tariffs, or set up subsidiaries aimed at different market segments, each subsidiary having its own speed and tariff. Companies will use technology and their own interpretations of the regulations to suit the market.
5. Should regulators/governments have that power over property?
a) No. or
2) Yes if there are compelling reasons for the public good, but there are no compelling reasons. (Public good, see 1.)
6. Competition. Regulations being a barrier to entry will reduce competition. Regulators will argue that less competition reduces wasteful use of resources, they will have much work producing studies to find the optimal level of competition which maximizes the public good. So, industry costs go up, so charges go up. The costs of regulation come from government so no cost to anyone as they print more money for it (gulp!).

Note, points 1. and 2. rely on the essentially subject nature of ethical decisions.