On the surface, it sounds like a good thing. It seems to mean that all websites compete for bandwidth on equal terms.
I can see the drawbacks, though. It's regulation, a sort of Americans with Disabilities Act for inefficient sites and protocols. It's like, you see wheelchair ramps and handicapped parking spots and think, "hey, that's nice," until you see some 400 pound recreational eating enthusiast riding a Jazzy up one at Winn-Dixie.
When I think of who might be impacted, my guess is that people playing real time online games with fancy graphics and lots of participants will be the first victims. There probably will be dedicated "gamer packages" that people will have to buy on top of their regular network service.
Online video is another potential target. I can see sites with lots of video ads getting targeted by ISPs. "Cord cutters" are another tempting target for ISPs like Comcast. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. Did not enjoy all of the alternative-to-cable football broadcasts I had to watch this season.
The danger is that ideology will enter into the ISP's calculations of whose traffic gets throttled. I think that's something that can be legislated and litigated against independent of what people are calling "net neutrality" right now.