The president doesn't run anything so his stance doesn't matter. I'm sure there's some panel of advisers or lobbyists that have been running this thing for years.
We can't know whether or not Net Neutrality Law is a good thing unless we get a look at those 332 pages. Any and all debates on the matter are conjecture until we see what's going to change. Personally, I don't think the issues surrounding the commercial exploitations of the internet are viable arguments in favor of the law. There are several laws on the books, already well enforced and upheld in the face of very large amounts of money thrown in an effort to evade them.
I see two other potential problems with the law being passed:
1. Several reps from from the Anit-Net Neutrality Camp (telecoms, ISP, computer hardware companies) have stated passing the law will cause things like, "... stifle innovation and curb growth...", "...that would freeze innovation in the core of the Internet", and " this new classification [Title II telecommunications service under the 1934 Communications Act] will discourage broadband providers from investing in their networks."
I'm not sure that's really true (see 'Potential Problem 2'), but I see those statements as more of a declaration of intent than anything else. They may do those things as part of the normal "Corporate fluff-Fit, Blame The Government For The Issues But We Wanted To Cut Costs To Improve Profits Anyway" policy. Why are they concerned? -->
2. Title II allows for the FCC to fix prices and force line sharing between competitors. It also has provisions for additional taxes (short version). The people behind this idea say that the government will ignore those provisions (yeah, right). These companies will inevitably pass these new expenses on to customers as part of their CBFBTGFTIBWWTCCTIPA policy.
In a lot of places I looked the main issue seems to be the assignment of broadband under "Title II telecommunications service under the 1934 Communications Act" but 332 pages seems like an awful lot to add something that essentially is the same as defined in the above mentioned act.
Additional side note: The original 1934 Communications Act is 333 pages long. Maybe "Net Neutrality Law" really boils down to nothing more than a refactoring of that law???
(lists similar laws in other countries).