Irrespective of how neutral what I pay for is, what's the Great Ideological Problem with letting some providers pay for faster/better connections to me, at least as long as every provider is given the same options?
No-one is asking me to pay for better service explicitly even if they may roll costs into things I (or a pool of people nominally including me) may pay for.
If I buy stuff by mail order, some suppliers may do free UPS delivery, others might not, but as long as UPS isn't cutting exclusive deals and refusing to deal with some suppliers, what's the problem?
If someone chooses to stick with regular post and I choose not to deal with them as a result, where's the foul.
If someone chooses to build a convenience store on the box at the end of my street my phone line runs through, if anyone else also could do that if they paid a fair fee, why should I declare it Wrong?
So someone can sit on their arse ten miles away and expect me to pretend all shops should be equally inconvenient?
Surely the point about a digital landscape is that 'land' isn't a limited resource in the same way that actual land is. If company A chooses to spend money to give me a better service than company B, if A isn't cutting an anticompetitive deal to exclude B, why should I see B's complaints as more than sour grapes from someone who wants my custom but wants to spend less in giving me a service?
The only obvious point is that ISPs shouldn't unduly throttle everything in order to wring money out of content providers. But since that seems basically the same as 'overcharging end users for a service', they could (and maybe do) that already where there is insufficient competition. The issue there is whether there is competitive choice, rather than issues around Net Neutrality.