The problem with the "net neutrality" issue for those looking for "freedom", like Libertarian minded individuals, is the complexity of the industry.
One could argue that it is more "free" to allow the companies to control it how they wish. (Rand Paul's position.)
One could argue that it is more "free" to allow the customers to use it how they wish.
The (only) problem with Rand Paul's position is that the companies are using a government granted charter (monopoly) to run these Internet connections to the homes and government granted eminent domain to run these Internet backbones. If the government granted these items, then the government has oversight on these lines. If these telecom built the lines using their own capital and without the use of special government laws, then they shouldn't be subject to net neutrality red tape and regulations. However, the fact is the opposite. There isn't one telecom that did not rely on the government for their infrastructure. So those telecoms should not be allowed to do with that joint-property how they wish.
The problem with the current law is that it will push this regulation across the industry, whether or not the company should conform. What if a company shoots a satellite into space without using eminent domain or acquiring any monopolistic charter and that satellite can deliver great Internet access (I know, rare, right?)? That access should not be subject to these regulations.