You're arguing my example, not my point. Every ISP will be able to throttle any website it wants. To incorporate my example, there's no real point of ditching Comcast for throttling Netflix, if every other ISP chooses to do the same. I literally just said that here:

as there's no point in ditching your shitty internet service for one that's equally shitty. And even if people boycott one ISP, and the others improve their quality to draw in the boycotters' business, as you say, the service will just go back to shit once they get your money.

As for media/public reactions, News sites can also be throttled, and though there are also newspapers, TV, etc, reactions won't matter, because throttling sites would be legal.

How about I put it this: Imagine you need to go to the hospital for a doctors appointment in... let's say, the endocrinology department. You are already paying the hospital to be able to make appointments, but imagine getting to the endocrinology department, and having to pay a fee to enter the department, separate from the fee you already paid to have the appointment in the first place.

That's what Net Neutrality is for: preventing ISPs from slamming you with paywall after paywall to access certain websites. You already pay the ISP for internet service, so you shouldn't have to pay them additional money to be able to use what you bought to its fullest extent, right?