Which IMO is a good thing. Practically, (ie. non-cynical for its own sake) we should ask as many senators for their opinion as possible, and make the FCC's position even more unpopular within Washington. Leading to (hopefully) more defection within FCC by members that worry about their future careers.
Do QOS on the type of packets, not the source/destination. VOIP, gaming? To the front of the line. Web? Firmly in the middle. Streaming next. Downloads/BT? To the back.
Every packet is not treated equally, but prioritized according to the needs of the consumer. The source or destination of the packets shouldn't matter.
EDIT: I've implemented this very policy in an office, and despite the fact that the links in and out were regularly saturated and QOS was triggered - nobody complained, because their expectations were met. Netflix had the same priority as YouTube. Downloads of Linux ISOs or the latest GOT episode never interrupted in-progres VOIP calls.
Specifically, if the source is the ISP itself. Comcast or Spectrum or AT&T shouldn't be allowed to prioritize their own streaming traffic* over Netflix's.
If they can't deliver quality streaming (theirs) to their customers, they should invest in better infrastructure.
* Yes, this includes trying to make the claim that their own VLAN / segregated TV-over-IP network is "different". They own the last mile, they need to provide RAND access.
This allows people to use whatever services they like, but still get the benefits of QoS.
That's why the FCC's implementation makes exceptions for traffic management and deals only with business practice related net neutrality violations.
Of course, not all business practice related net neutrality violations are bad for the consumer, so the FCC makes lots of exceptions for those as well (see: zero rating).
(IANAL)
