Either these people don't know a thing about net neutrality, or they don't know a thing about free markets. I am guessing it is a little both. Net neutrality is regulation of big business to ensure the free flow of information -- at its core it prohibits a telecommunications company from preferring one type of content over another. The network must be neutral to the bits flowing across its lines. Comcast could make a lot of money making sure that YouTube videos got preferred bandwidth while startup video providers were stuck in with rest of the data.
Lest you think that big companies dealing for bandwidth is a pie-in-the-sky proposition, none other than Google has tried to pen such deals - using ISP servers to cache its searches and proposing the construction of Google server farms next to ISPs with dedicated lines. There is a business logic to this: there are a lot of Google users and this would help them access Google faster. Thing is, it also gives a big player in the market an unfair advantage in the medium of communication.
This is not unlike the vertical monopoly Rockefeller created with Standard Oil. By owning every stage of production, from the oil derrick to the railroad, JDR both lowered his own cost and, more importantly, prevented others from using the same means to produce competing goods. That type of monopoly has since been heavily regulated.
The truth in a free market is that not everything is free. Rather, a free market functions most effectively when information flows freely. Any attempt to limit or alter the flow of information -- insider trading, collusion, etc. -- creates an inefficient market and represents an attempt to stifle competition. That reality gets interesting when one talks about telecoms. The lines are all run and maintained by private entities - in particular those providing the fiber that carries data signals. While we want enough competition to spur innovation in that area, we don't want these companies crossing the outer lining of their own wires and meddling with the substance of the data itself. The only thing that can come of that is to prefer one type of content over another.
Rather, these companies should put effort into making the whole system run faster for everyone. But won't that just reduce the cost of the service? Yes, and we'll use more. But what motivation will telecoms have to lay more cable if service is cheaper? Well, the federal government pitches in for that. Wait, there's federal money underlying all of this? Yes - now don't you feel a little better about ensuring that we all get equal access to the cable we helped fund?