I don't think nn is good, but I think the current situation in the US drives people towards solutions like nn. Here are some reasons why you would want nn over the previous status quo:
- The company that builds and operates the network has been granted substantial subsidy; the government subsidizing it has a right to make demands to the quality and pricing of the product.
- The company is interested in maximizing profits from the product; the government is interested in providing the service to the maximum number of people. This includes places where laying infrastructure is not cost-effective, i.e. sparsely populated rural areas far from the current network. The company would not be willing to build infrastructure for them, so the government subsidizes it, but expects a certain measure of quality in return(back to argument 1)
- The de-facto situation is a monopoly, and the Telco Act is designed to deal with such a situation. While you say "just fix the root cause", it's not obvious how to do that. Assuming that new ISPs will pop up, there will still be a painful transition period. During this period, what are people supposed to do? NN shifts the "harm" from the users to the companies, which is a short and medium-term net-positive for the users. And what if no ISPs pop up? You're throwing people's livelihood in jeopardy on a gamble. This is essentially the "internet is a public good" argument.
For these reasons you want some measure of regulation where you can provide internet connectivity to the maximum number of people. This is very reminiscent to phones, so it's natural to reach for the Telco Act.
I think NN is a painful compromise for the current situation the US is in.
I think the only obvious endgame of NN is essentially nationalizing ISPs - what are you going to do in the long term when they refuse to provide better internet because they can't justify the cost? NN will be a fairly powerful tool for them to eliminate any possible competition, or as a MAD weapon to enforce their turfs(look at the clauses about compliance - they are regulated on a local level, guess where ISPs have the most lobbying power?).
On the other hand, the situation in the US "as-is" is pretty shit, and people want some kind of assurance for the future of their internet access. That assurance can only realistically come from the government. I am not sure whether I would vote for or against NN if I had to, even though I opposite it on principle(I don't think it's a good solution).
Luckily, I don't have to deal with such a problem. In our country, the nationalized phone company builds internet lines, and leases them to competing ISPs(they are also allowed to build their own). This has worked so far, but the situation is vastly different from the US.