Are you sure about that?
What is the economic incentive for an ISP to provide "unfiltered" access? The "real money" for service providers — that new source of revenue which you believe will attract so much competition — will come from striking lucrative content deals with websites and online services, not adding subscribers. The only successful ISPs will be the ones who can leverage the most favorable agreements with content providers, not the ISPs who are committed to providing the best quality of service for their paying customers.
I'm not sure if you do, and for the record, I think we're on roughly the same side of the political spectrum. I'm a staunch capitalist and pro-business libertarian (that's one reason I love the Internet so much — it
is was an equal playing field), but to me, net neutrality has nothing to do with politics. It is quite jarring to see so many people I usually agree with (politically) arguing for something that I know is wrong, but I think it happens because so many people don't fully understand the Internet or what net neutrality is.
Using "more competition" as the cornerstone of your argument underscores this point. Internet service is not like other types of businesses. You can't just buy a piece of property and start your own ISP to compete with the big guys: you'll have to secure a local franchise agreement in a city, town, or county, make arrangements with the local power company to hang your fiber on their poles (if they'll even let you), get FCC licenses, etc. Google Fiber and municipal broadband projects have been trying to do that for years now, and incumbent providers have fought tooth-and-nail in the courts to prevent competition and hold on to their local monopolies. They'll fight even harder without net neutrality, making the barrier to entry for new ISPs even higher.
Of course, we haven't even touched on what the lack of net neutrality means for backbone providers (the companies who ISPs buy their bandwidth from). What happens when you try to start your own "neutral" ISP, only to discover that you yourself can't buy bandwidth from any neutral provider? The whole Internet infrastructure turns into a tangled, corrupt mess of back-room deals that artificially raises prices and lowers quality of service. This leads to consolidation and cartels, not open markets and competition.
Because "Binge On" can be turned on or off at no additional charge — so T-Mobile users have the option of whether their traffic is filtered or not — and because T-Mobile has made efforts to ensure that any video provider can use it free of charge (yes, even PornHub), I don't see that as a net neutrality issue.
I know; mine was a rhetorical answer.