While your statement of "of course they are not happy with it" is true, it's not a defense in my mind. The same could be said about any regulation that controls indefensible practices of companies.

From oil companies, to fishing companies, to waste disposal to whatever, most companies from a purely technical viewpoint would be more than happy to get rid of regulations that control what and how they can do business. Yet, we have those regulations in place for a reason.

In this case we simply ask that ISPs deliver the bits we paid for. I don't want Comcast treating my bits differently anymore than I want my mail carrier to hold my packages ransom because they seem important and I'd probably pay more for them.

My mail carrier doesn't read my mail. Comcast shouldn't either.

I'd argue that

- basic honesty (not pretending they don't get paid)

- and not extorting money from other companies by keeping said customers hostage

shouldn't be considered a disadvantage?

Net neutrality requires that ISPs actually deliver what they've advertised and collected payment for and claimed to deliver. Of course they're not happy with that. It's much easier to deliver less than promised but still pocket the full payment.