This is basically distributors vs. content providers. The distributors normally have the upperhand in a free market because they can always threaten to throttle content, while content providers can only threaten to deny content. So long as there are plenty of people desperate to generate content, the distributors have a hammerlock on the content providers.
The FCC sided with the content providers most likely because they gave them more money under the table. When the distributors up the ante, the FCC will modify the rules in favor of the distributors.
Can you help find the poison?
Your analysis overlooks the fact that in many instances the “content providers” and the “distributors” are one in the same (e.g. Comcast owns NBC).
The point of net neutrality is simply to prevent joint ISP/content-providers or cabals formed by ISPs and content providers from functioning as a vertical trust to prevent other content-providers from having equal access to the market or to suppress entrance of competing ISPs which can’t provide access to the vertical trust’s content on equal terms.
Contrary to what most FReepers seem to think net neutrality per se is a good thing, being a pro-market regulation. Whether the Obama administration managed to get it right or to implement something else in the name of net neutrality remains to be seen. The devil is always in the details and the “400 pages of regulations” which strangely have an item in their index beginning on page 583, and had previously been describes as 700 pages, have enough room to house a whole hell of freedom killing devils. No one, however, in anything I have read has actually managed to find one.