Best argument against NN: Entrenching today's power brokers will not bode well for the future and will kill all of the smaller players.
Network neutrality is not Ma Bell style regulation. NN will not freeze things. Don't know which oligarchs you are referring to, but any NN laws are unlikely to stop them 'garching.
Killing NN is unlikely to kill all the small players. In fact they might rather thrive by using NN as a competitive tool.
I presume you don't believe in the existence of selective enforcement in industries where the government holds massive regulatory power? Why does it seem somehow that the most powerful incumbents are never punished, but smaller upstarts are crushed (or not even started) due to the regulatory burden? NN makes this worse.
Pai merely proposes to move things back to the way they were since the beginning of Internet Time to 2015, way back when the Internet was a Title I "information service", subject to much less formal regulation by the FCC. This is met with furious uproar.
His proposal would enable ISPs to make access to some content slower, or more expensive, than others.
His proposal does nothing to resolve existing broadband monopolies.
Many people like the way the internet works today and do not want Pai's policies to pass. We don't want more silos or limited access to content. People are making their voices heard because they feel strongly about this issue.
Are you implying that even after you solve a problem, there are still other problems, so the best thing to do is to do nothing? There is a word for people who do nothing and criticize those who act.