Meh.
Pro Net Neutrality is going to be screaming that ISP's will selectively throttle bandwith to screw up video streaming and other high-bandwidth activities to prevent competition and an oligarchy of the biggest content providers, backbones, and ISP's will selectively price and throttle any competition out of the market.
Anti Net Neutrality is going to be exultant that people who own the fiber and the gear will actually be able to charge more for people who use more, or conversely throttle when they charge everyone the same. And that actually getting paid instead of being used for free by content providers will actually create market incentives and competition to provide more avenues to reach consumers with bandwidth and new kinds of services we haven't even considered yet, since they know they can price it at market levels.
The actual truth and rubber hitting the road is probably somewhere in between. Me personally, I would say a compromise where regional monopoly ISP's have to be net-neutral, but where there's multiple competing ISP's in a region consumers can choose from they can throttle or charge as they see fit might be the right answer. However, that gets complicated when you're talking about backbones, NOC's, head-ends, etc. and not just the individual town or "last mile" to the consumer.
Barring that, forced to choose either/or, I'd default to the free(er)-market decision which is anti-net-neutrality.