What it really boils down to for me is keeping internet business playing field level.
The Vonage VOIP service makes for a good illustration. I'd bet many here use Vonage to save money over a traditional phone service. In some areas where a cable company is the sole broadband internet option, folks who have have been using Vonage with no issues for months are now seeing poor quality and lots of dropped calls. When they call tech support for their cable internet provider, they're told, "We can't guarantee any VOIP service besides our own. Oh, and guess what, we can sign you up right now if you like..."
Pretty much all of the broadband providers seem to be rolling out their own VOIP services (even traditional LD providers like Verizon with their VoiceWing service).
If a company is the sole provider of broadband in an area, what is their incentive not prioritize their own VOIP service's traffic, and degrade the quality of third party competitor's traffic like Vonage...
Net Neutrality, in some form (not necessarily this current incarnation), means to me not having to be railroaded into into my broadband provider's services. It means ensuring, that in the future, the net applications and services I run will be based on MY informed choice and not the whims of my ISP.
Unfortunately, the bills are not written to define regulations by "as meant to fadinglight". It doesn't matter what "net neutrality" means to you, what matters is what effect the regulations would actually have on the internet, on ISP's, and on future internet innovators. (That might be one of the reaons that the pro-regulators chose this term for their attempts to regulate the internet.)