Like more comings and goings of the federal government Net Neutrality is a very sticky and confusing topic. After reading the regulatory statute and the dissenting opinions, the easiest way to understand cloak-and-dagger government actions like this is to hear from the horse's mouth. Below is an excerpt from one of the members of the FCC panel:
"What had been bottom-up, non-governmental and grassroots based Internet governance will become politicized. Today, the United States is abandoning the long-standing bipartisan and international consensus to insulate the Internet from state meddling in favor of a preference for top-down control by unelected political appointees, three of whom will decide what constitutes 'reasonable' behavior." -
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL
From reading the full statement (way too many pages), McDowell's concerns are valid. He feels that this regulation will not make the Internet more free or available, but will instead be the gateway to more aggressive regulations. In the Net Neutrality Act or officially; "FCC Acts To Preserve Internet Freedom And Openness," the FCC is given the power to regulate "resolvable" blockage of programs, sites and/or services. In other words, it gives the FCC a free pass to meddle with any service providers it wants to slow or dismantle, providing that at least three commissioner approve. Below is a controversial passage from the official statement about "Net Neutrality"
Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination
A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.
The argument the government uses is that "Net Neutrality" will stop the company from monopolizing the Internet in a similar fashion to how the railroads were controlled during the gilded age in American history. At on time the railroads were controlled by one organization, and thus had the power to control who used their rail for shipment of the goods. This allowed the railroads to be the gatekeeper for any business trying to grow. The FCC argues that is what is happening with Internet providers. A company like Comcast could control what services or programs got special treatment, similar to how the railroads controlled commerce. Net Neutrality, however, does a lot more then stop providers from blocking or "prioritizing programs"; it actually allow the government to control a lot of the "prioritizing" instead.
When the government is given control over the definition of words, you will be surprised by the sudden level of creativity used when enforcing these rules. As the dissenting members of the FCC stated, this is nothing more then a backdoor way to control and regulate the Internet.
Like more comings and goings of the federal government Net Neutrality is a very sticky and confusing topic. After reading the regulatory statute and the dissenting opinions, the easiest way to understand cloak-and-dagger government actions like this is to hear from the horse's mouth. Below is an excerpt from one of the members of the FCC panel: 
The argument the government uses is that "Net Neutrality" will stop the company from monopolizing the Internet in a similar fashion to how the railroads were controlled during the gilded age in American history. At on time the railroads were controlled by one organization, and thus had the power to control who used their rail for shipment of the goods. This allowed the railroads to be the gatekeeper for any business trying to grow. The FCC argues that is what is happening with Internet providers. A company like Comcast could control what services or programs got special treatment, similar to how the railroads controlled commerce. Net Neutrality, however, does a lot more then stop providers from blocking or "prioritizing programs"; it actually allow the government to control a lot of the "prioritizing" instead. 
