Net neutrality is not law. There are valid arguments to be made against it - like with your cell plan, everyone can or perhaps should, pay for the bytes they use, and how much infrastructure (CPU) those bytes use to get delivered fast. There are also arguments for net neutrality.
But as with any agency, and agency is not a direct democracy. What if people in urban centers decided for the country that property tax should be based on acres of land? All of a sudden living on a cheap farm costs millions in taxes. But most people are in the city, so they outvote the farmers.
So we don't have a direct democracy for most things.
The solution is not law. Making up a thousand laws for every little thing is that government overreach you speak of. Repealing laws is literally the opposite of overreach.
What we need is more competition, so I as a user will pick the ISP that does not slow down traffic for me to sites I want to visit, instead of choosing between people who want to screw me with vs without lube.
Countries like France did it right. Cables go through public land, towers are on public land, radio frequencies are public. A company can't buy that.
So they put in cables and any company that wants can rent them, but never buy them. That's why in France, I had GbE at my house for 8EUR/month, with a free router, a decade ago, and cumblast here charges me $50/month for 50Mb/s today. Choice and competition. Capitalism.