I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. All net neutrality does is ensure the playing field stays level. You have to keep in mind that cable companies/broadcasters want to be the sole content provider, and they want you to pay them for it. They don't want Netflix; they don't want YouTube. You may not be old enough to recall when the cable providers tried very hard to degrade service to customers requesting Netflix because it was eating into their own pay-per-view model. When that didn't work, they decided to extort money from content providers and degrade the service until they got paid. Comcast was caught unambiguously doing this.
As netizens, we want the packets we request delivered unimpeded and unscrutinized to our browser. Tiered pricing takes care of getting video at the desired quality over simpler sites. If I'm only browsing eBay I'll get the low-end. If I'm viewing Netflix, I'll have to pay for the turbo-whatever. That should be my choice as a consumer.
Net neutrality makes it far easier for smaller players to compete. They don't have to have the muscle to negotiate with major ISPs they would otherwise need to in a non-nn environment.
Pointing to the LA Times article is weird too, if you weren't being sarcastic. It's basically a highly speculative non-issue, endorsed by a representative whose top contributing industry is the movie/television/music industry. The top 3 of Rep Walden's 4 contributors are the National Association of Broadcasters, Comcast, and 21st Century Fox. I wouldn't exactly call him "impartial" on the matter.