Does anyone seriously think anyone is going to chose an ISP who restricts bandwidth on popular sites like YouTube? Look at the backlash Virgin Media got over their brilliant bandwidth throttling idea.
The problem is that there are a lot of areas (especially in the US) where there only IS one broadband player in town.
Typically there's only one cable company and one local phone company -- and there's plenty of towns/cities where you don't even have the choice between DSL or cable -- there's just a single company providing it. just because your broadband is getting crippled and sucks, doesn't always mean that people will run away en masse -- if your other choice is dialup, most people would just suck it up and stick with it anyway.
THAT is where net neutrality is imperative -- Many people are going to be forced to put up with second class internet without it, simply because they don't have the option of switching to a better place.
And even if you do have the choice between cable & the phone company -- if they make a deal among themselves to both implement those kind of limitations at the same time, the end user still has absolutely no alternatives available to them.
for a fair, level playing field net neutrality is a huge deal... But the monopolies do see a nice little cash cow on the horizon, so they'll do anything they can to get those initiatives squashed... Which blows.