I have been trying to research this subject over the last couple of days and haven't come to a clear conclusion on it. I'm going to post my sparsely-sorted thoughts. I might not come to a clear point by the end of it, but hopefully my consideration of a couple key arguments will help others with theirs, and maybe y'all can help me too.
In theory, it is far easier to trust ISPs, which have to compete for business and don't have a monopoly on force, not to misuse their control over Internet access, than it is to trust a government agency, which is not responsive to the people and does have a monopoly on force, not to misuse their control over Internet access. In that sense, laws giving regulatory power to a government agency preventing ISPs from providing their services in a particular way is more likely to result in restricted Internet access and higher costs than not giving that agency those powers.
In practice, the utter lack of competition among ISPs in most areas of the United States sharply reduces the strength of this argument, since the primary incentive that should prevent ISPs from exerting their influence on the public's Internet access is competition...
It is true that the Internet existed as a "wild West," completely free, for the bulk of its existence with no net neutrality regulations. I find this to be a compelling argument and thus am very skeptical of fearmongering about "tiered access" or what have you, where your ISP will make you buy the Social Media Package or the Google-Amazon Package or the Sports Package or whatever. ISPs never did this before, so unless there were some compelling profit motive for them to start doing it now, why would they?
...but then, consider: Even though the Internet has expanded constantly since its inception, its userbase's time has become increasingly concentrated in smaller and more interconnected websites. Social media websites are the overwhelmingly prominent example of this. One of the major reasons ISPs would have had trouble with a "tiered access" program in the early 2000s is that outside of perhaps Google as a search engine, there were very few websites that were so ubiquitously used that ISPs could target them as the Internet equivalent of a "premium cable channel." Now, you could easily target Amazon, Google (which is more than just a search engine), Facebook, reddit, Twitter... the list goes on but only for a couple dozen sites, and you'd probably capture the significant majority of traffic in those couple dozen sites. The logistics would have been impossible in 2007, but are probably much more realistic in 2017.
Quite honestly, unless and until something is done to break up the oligopoly that is the American ISP market, I'm worried about the ramifications of repealing these regulations.
I do think the FCC claiming regulatory authority over the Internet as a utility is a joke, and that they need to go back to regulating radiowaves and stop LARPing as some arbiter of fairness in the realm of cable and Internet. In that sense I don't like the existing regulations, because I think they presume far too much about the FCC's job specifically and I think they are fundamentally cause for concern. But the correct order of operations here is first to break up the oligopoly of American ISPs and create real competition for consumers in the ISP market. THEN we absolutely should talk about getting the FCC out of its bogus self-claimed regulatory title... but *only* then.
)
Old Masters, New player names with fake IDs, Liniments & Tonics, etc, 
)
)
)