I guess the argument I would make against that is that the risk of starting with network neutrality is low because it is approximately what we have now (I'm sure someone will provide counter examples, but I would still say it is fairly much the situation). There is more certainty in maintaining the status quo than adventuring into unknown territory.

"Regulating it" has the wrong connotation when associated with Net Neutrality. It suggests an evil-facist government-controlled internet, when in fact it's the exact opposite.

Net Neutrality is government enforcing non-control of the internet, over everybody. It says that no one, including the government, can make the internet a non-level playing field. Like national parks, it's a Good Thing™.