I have two problems with this:
1) How is this enforced? If a Comcast or TimeWarner have their own on-demand video services offered over the internet, it makes perfect sense that their servers will have far more bandwidth and less latency for connections on their own network and thus provide superior quality to in-network clients compared to external sources of similar services (such as Hulu, YouTube, or whatever). The cable company won't be throttling anything in this scenario, yet it will look like there is a dramatic difference in bandwidth between the two services and be a source of complaints and possible regulatory proceedings. Should the cable company be forced to throttle their own internal services to match the average throughput experienced on external services? Should the be forced to purchase/install more and more bandwidth on their internet backbone connections so external services have a chance at matching internal service quality? As Richard said, since this policy will force carriers to provide non-discriminatory bandwidth to all internet based services to their customers, this will lead directly to more tiered service plan rollouts and broader based connection throttling that will affect more than just those using bandwidth hogging services.
2) While this may be a supportable policy on wired/optical networks, enforcing this on wireless networks is entirely unreasonable at this time. They are two different beasts. Requiring wireless providers to not throttle certain data types severely limits their ability to manage their networks (both data and voice), which can easily result in more dropped connections and calls. At the very least people are likely to experience more dynamic connection throttling across all types of data in high congestion areas, whereas now the companies have more options available, such as throttling just streaming video to favor straight http(s) web traffic, email, voicemail data, text, voice, and other lower bandwidth, higher priority services. In the future when wireless service is more commoditized and the bandwidth is greater, then they can revisit this, but right now this is prematurely be applied to wireless providers.
What regulations do I support? First, get more aggressive against these regional monopoly holders. While there is a reasonable argument against opening the poles to more infrastructure suppliers, there is no reason these cable and optical infrastructure holders can't be treated as common carrier service providers and be forced to sell wholesale bandwidth and residential connection drops to independent ISPs. This will introduce a new level competition in the market. Also encourage states to abandon granting regional monopolies and denying community owned and operated wireless or wired broadband services. Perhaps restrict federal broadband availability/accessibility grants and tax credits to those states that drop these kinds of provisions.
I'd also encourage efforts to move the market toward metered broadband pricing, at both wireless and wired ISPs. Much of the debate and problem revolving around net neutrality is because there is an inherent disconnect in two places. First, online application and service providers are not paying anyone for "last mile" distribution costs. They are essentially getting subsidized by the subscriber bases of broadband ISPs, many of whom don't use the high bandwidth services or at least use them sparingly. And second, the need to cover the costs of high bandwidth internet applications and the relative few on a given network that use them heavily has led to most ISP subscribers subsidizing the heavy use of the minority.
It's as if everyone were throwing their gas receipts into a community pool. The average calculated, everyone pays that average flat rate. The road warriors and those with bad ass 4x4's with quad barrel carbs for the daily commute make out great, the home bound who drive once or twice a week to get groceries and go to church and maybe visit the grandkids are screwed hard. The average folks make out about the same. That is until some get the idea that they'll start driving more to get more out of their flat rate. And the rates start climbing slowly. New faster highways and new popular destinations hit the scene and more people head toward them... more rises in prices. Group rate services hide the true costs of the abusers, entice the average to be more than average, and always screw the cost conscientious. Sure, those cost consious people could ride bikes, but that's only good if every destination they have is within a reasonable distance and there aren't other externalities like bad weather, poor health, etc. So long as they want/have to use that car once a month (or even once in a year) they are scewed. Metered access, like having to buy your gas from a metered pump, solves all these problems. Tiered access gets part way there, but the tiers are almost always designed to favor above average consumers of the service at the expense of the broader base of underutilizers.
ISPs like 1 tier and multitier service pricing because of that "encourage more use, price increase" power of the structure. Upstream service providers also prefer it because they got a whole lot of something for nothing, allowing them to pay their people better, spend more on R&D, and also to rake in more profits than they otherwise would. Metered service is feared by ISPs and the internet application service providers because they know it means people will reduce their use of services and will force them to actually engage in price competition and justify their service to the masses.