"Anti-regulation" rhetoric against Net Neutrality is either sock puppetry or useful idiocy.
The FCC's draft rules respond to this objection by simply dismissing it. The draft rules basically dismiss all commentary that did not come from ISPs as "not persuasive." The only reason any of those comments were cited at all is to prove that all submitted commentary was considered, something that is legally required of them.
This is why there is a good chance this will be tied in the federal courts. The comment process is supposed to prevent an "arbitrary and capricious" decision by a federal agency. Pai's comments could be used to make a persuasive argument that this is arbitrary (says we're desperate doesn't help). Capricious is a much harder thing to prove. I think the fact that data shows the comment period was tainted by foreign entities, false entries, and that 98.5% of the valid comments were in support of NN could use to show this is capricious in that his actions show a disregard for the consumer.
A lot of it is just a misunderstanding of how the Internet works and what net neutrality is. Many conservatives will give arguments like "you should be able to charge people more if they're watching Netflix all the time and using lots of bandwidth". Which is true, but to show why that's irrelevant to net neutrality you have to go into the details of routing and peering and you'll lose most people three sentences in. See the comments at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0iv4nmPz8A&lc=UgwIM85WNrVRv..., where a few conservatives who work in tech try to explain what's going on, without much success.