Much of the argument as presented by those lobbying is, as is so often the case, presented as a choice between false dichotomies.
What needs to be regulated here is not so much the speed at which we get to enjoy our streaming or downloads, but the opportunity for monopoly behavior by mammoth incumbents who use their size to create vertical or horizontal integration that restricts competition.
In my view, the only valid argument for anything like what people are calling "net neutrality" maps well to the case the EU is making against Google: that it abused its dominance in search to drive customers to its own non-search products at the expense of competing services from other providers.
Translating that to the basic form of what "net neutrality" *ought* to be about, it means that companies like, say, Hulu (to pick a non-FANG company) should feel secure that their service will not be given inadequate treatment by an infrastructure carrier, like Comcast, who also streams their own, in-house content. It's not that there's no conceivable justification for Comcast charging Hulu, but rather that any charges need to be fair and reasonable, and should not be designed to cause structural disadvantage to Hulu relative to Comcast's own streaming services. This is particularly important when the carriers represent an oligopoly or near-monopoly, as they do in the US, since a Hulu has no real choice but to deal with them if they want access to huge parts of the US market.
The idea that protections anti-competitive behavior by carriers requires "treating all traffic the same" is an abuse of the reality that most people have no idea how internet traffic works, or that different types of internet traffic have different quality of service requirements, sometimes by design.
There are other distortions at play as well. Conservatives often hate government regulation, and I think there's merit in the idea that Title II classification for internet carriers is, at best a square peg in a round hole. But there's a difference in not wanting the wrong regulation (or too much "correct" regulation) and wanting no regulations at all. Truly "free markets" are a pipe dream - you *always* need some degree backstop against the human tendency towards greed. Time and time again we've seen that when left to their devices, people will relentlessly converge on maximizing short-term personal/corporate profit at the expense of the broader community. (The phrase "this is why we can't have nice things" comes to mind.) So the question should not be whether we need protections, but what form they should take, and who should be responsible for ensuring companies adhere to them in this case (FTC? FCC?). It would be nice if whoever it was wasn't stacked with friends to the industries they supposedly regulate, but that seems to be a perennial issue.
It doesn't help that, of late, so many of our political parties are highly polarized, and seem more interested in tearing each other down than in actually getting anything done. Compound this with the sides in the "net neutrality" fight in the US seemingly aligning along those partisan divisions in their lobbying efforts and you have a recipe for misinformation, dramatization and, ultimately, failure to really get anything useful done.