Because the context is relevant here. Net neutrality is not some government over-reach. It was a specific reaction to a captive telco trying to fundamentally change how the internet works by having an intermediary convert certain packet traffic into a "premium" service.

The only reason net neutrality wasn't already law or part of the peering or ARIN contracts to even be on the internet at all was that no one could imagine that ISPs would become monopoly/dualopolies that might try to block traffic to extract extra rents from from both their existing paying customers and the owners of the servers their customers wanted to connect with.

In retrospect it should have been part of the contract to get a netblock from one of the NRO organizations (like ARIN) that such conduct is prohibited.

And before anyone raises a straw man: the policy could have been clear that traffic-shaping for fairness, QoS, network health, or even non-service-specific transfer caps was allowed.

In some ways how ISPs handle transfer caps is similar: their stated reasoning is garbage. The cap does nothing to discourage high use during peak periods and punishes customers who do bulk transfers at midnight when the ISP's network has plenty of capacity. The real purpose of caps is to extract more rent for doing nothing.

The ILEC and Cable ISPs look back on the $1/minute long distance telephone days of Ma Bell with sparkles in their eyes. Funny for a service that entirely depends on the government giving them free access to my and your property for right-of-way.