For politicians, "net neutrality" is something to get people fired up about an idea, so that it can be wrapped up with other things. The recent Obama push for net neutrality isn't for the sake of net neutrality as we geeks know and love, but rather some vague notion of a clean internet. The real aim is to move the internet under Title II so that it can be heavily regulated. It would also be subjected to the 16.1% universal service fund tax (as spelled out in the telecom act of 1996).
With the recent events such as the Federal Election Commission wanting to impose new regulations on internet-based political activities, I question the motives of the government heavily regulating the internet, and if it would stay neutral for long. The government has a long, long history of grabbing up any amount of control and power it can reach, and I'm personally fearful that moving the internet under Title II will force on so many regulations that, even if the internet was "net neutral", it would be hampered in plenty other ways. How much more innovation would the telephone have gone through over the past 100 years if it weren't regulated? There's no way of knowing, but I personally don't want to see the internet thrown to that kind of experiment.
"Net Neutrality" is being used as the boondoggle to move the internet under Title II. This is a power grab by the government, and has nothing to do about protecting the consumer. Yes, I believe net neutrality is paramount to protecting the innovation that the internet brings us; but moving it under Title II does nothing to guarantee that.