Net Neutrality Neutered ?

In all this hullabaloo over the Google-Verizon proposal,there are a lot of grey areas...
One good point stands out. No company can pay an ISP to prioritize it's traffic at the expense of a rival.
That, I think, pretty much retains the core idea of Net Neutrality.

Then why is there a reluctance on one's part to say it's cool?
Why is there a nagging suspicion that this proposal will do us no good?
Why is there so much skepticism around the deal?
There are reasons good enough to justify this ...

For one, the bargaining power rests with the ISPs when it comes to dealing with the smaller content providers. No good can come of it.
These smaller content providers will be able to cut deals with some ISPs, not with all.
Now, imagine one ISP has a deal with one of the bandwidth-hogs, and you get high-speed access to it at home. Now you travel to another place, and the ISP there doesn't allow high-speed access to this service, since it doesn't have a deal with the content provider. So you can access a website at full service levels with one ISP in one place, but not with another ISP in another place. What total rot!! The very essence of today's evolution is that the internet is the same wherever you go.

You can kiss the idea of a 'cloud' goodbye if this happens.

Tech. enthusiasts aside, the marketing departments won't be too happy with this development. They're targeting their customers and spending money on advertising on the right website, with all the segmentation, profiling etc. Now, some ISP comes along and blocks access to the website. A good proportion of the advertising expense would just go down the drain. Not good !!

Even if an ISP doesn't block access altogether to these bandwidth-hogs, if they just provide access to the content but at much lower (public) speeds, that's just not good enough. It'll still be a retrograde step.