Generally, it is not the technical side of the ISP that gets a lot of hate. Anyone in IT should have a reasonable grasp of just how hard networking really is, so IT people should have a good feeling of how much harder than that it would be to operate at the provider level.
What ends up being the anger issues are the purely commercial/business side:
The business decision to spy on users for advertising profits.
Their actual regional monopolies that skirt the law because there is national level competition.
The inconsistent pricing and massive numbers of fees that are just pure profit. (Not the few actual taxes.)
The close ties to legacy entertainment leads to a naked conflict of interests.
The political fallout from the FCC enforcing basic rules that actually built the majority of the internet culture before it went big business.
The service that ISPs provide are outstandingly expensive with a glacial pace of new technology roll outs. We know it's hard and expensive, but that's not an excuse to do literally nothing but collect profits. FiOS is the perfect example... NYC is suing because they took grant money and tax incentives, then utterly neglected the agreed upon course of action.
Internet service should be a deeply regulated utility like water and electricity. The strict price controls offset the regional monopolies model. The companies that run ISP should be legally required to be independent from non-ISP business interests, like cable TV, Entertainment, or phone services. ISPs being divided at the last mile from the core plumbing of the internet also sets up a deeply adversarial relationship with the backbone providers. Integrating those two realms into regional entities enforcing interconnectivity rules would reduce the Net Neutrality issue considerably.
None of those will ever happen, however. The lobbying against enforcing utility rules that mandate the profit margins would be extreme.
Edit: Typos/Autocorrect