Although I am a strong supporter of net neutrality, I think that it is important to see both sides of the equation.

The largest argument against net neutrality is that it is a prophylactic, (Disease preventing) measure that is in response to an Internet full of interference by large entities with either financial or political incentives to do so. Important economists like Gerald R. Faulhaber, Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy, and of Management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania argue that net neutrality is unneeded because of the limited cases in which net neutrality has been infringed. Furthermore, ISPs according to some economists are losing out on money that can be collected from websites for speed premiums.

However, I would argue that net neutrality is a necessity for allowing citizens of a country to be free, and have free expression and contact with other groups of people that would not normally be in contact, and that disease prevention may be the best solution to prevent the possibility of agenda based blocking of news sources which are prevalent in certain countries across the globe.

Tl;Dr: Net neutrality may or may not be profitable for ISPs and or a disease prevention measure. It's still really new.