If your criticizing the boy with the tape on his mouth, you're correct, someone doesn't understand net neutrality . . . that someone is you. "Net neutrality" is the "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet.
Net neutrality is inherently anti-Constitution--anti-First Amendment.
There are a couple major definitions of net neutrality running around. The first is that the ISP shouldn't control, limit or give preference to any data stream over another. The biggest threat is when the user is trying to use a service in direct competition to the ISP's services, such as downloading (legal) Netflix movies over a cable modem, when the cable company would rather sell you their own pay per view. Without net neutrality the cable company would be able to slow down or entirely prevent your access to Netflix. I approve of this version. I'm paying my ISP for access to the whole internet, not part of the internet. Now this doesn't prevent the ISP from limiting bandwidth or total data transmitted, just that they must treat everything, even their own services, equally. If there was enough competition (like back in the days of thousands of dial-up ISPs) this wouldn't be needed because no ISP could do it without losing their customers. Most areas now have only two or three high speed access methods, and two are usually the phone and cable companies. Both have huge interests in you not downloading entertainment or using VOIP phones on their networks, even if they wouldn't care for another stream using exactly the same amount of bandwidth for a non-competetive usage.
The second definition is something I've never seen fully defined where the government gets control over what can be seen or not seen on the internet like China does. The Obama regime may be eager to get this amount of control, but I really don't consider this to be true net neutrality. The problem is the FCC will probably try to sell the control as the beneficial variety of net neutrality from my first definition.
To summarize, government control bad, ISP limitations also bad.