Nope. The core tenets of net neutrality have always been around access and priority of the content going between networks. The only factor where net neutrality would regulate the physical pipe like this is based on edge providers and backbone service access. E.g. A fair price would have to be consistent with what all where being charged. You couldn't say charge Netflix 100 million dollars to have access to inter-network backbones then simulataneously only charge Disney 1 million dollars for the same thing. This is because most large scale network providers are also content companies in the USA.
To quote a nice layman summary from the EFF/Save The Internet:
Net Neutrality is the internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online.
Net Neutrality means an internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that ISPs should provide us with open networks — and shouldn’t block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn’t decide who you call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn’t interfere with the content you view or post online.
Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open internet.
No real mention of advertised speeds being ahered to. Speed in the context of which you were using it also would not be correct. Speed in the context of Net Neutrality means no prioritized slow downs or speed ups in exchange for cash, essentially. Again, I think that had more to do with access and not actual pet megabit speeds
https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need...