Loosely defined. yes, this is good. But... the devil is in the details. Before we agree and jump on any "net neutrality" rules, guidelines, laws, etc, we should look closely at the language used. Look closely at any addendum attached., everything about it. What may appear to be net neutrality may ultimately contain things that undermine the premise of the rules or outright make it mean something the summary does not imply. This actually is a good idea for whatever bill, rules, regulations, etc may come up. It's part of a good democratic view, where you can express to your representatives (who may do as they please anyway, which is a problem you can try to remedy on election day) what you think about it and anything else added to it. Of course it can't be "You got to vote on it before you can see what it says and is" as that defeats any transparency. If these representatives of ours are as transparent as they claim, as in our corner as they preach throughout their (re)election campaigns, they should have no qualms as letting us see the actual legislation, rules, etc they will vote on, unaltered and verbatim.Loosely defined, net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) shouldn't be able to discriminate between data sources. The go-to example is the threat of tiered internet packages that would require you to pay extra for access to streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and so on. Other worries include the potential for premium lanes, which would see ISPs charge high-traffic companies for speedy data delivery to their customers, and giving ISP-offered services a leg up on the competition by offering free access to them or boosting their data transfer speeds.
Put another way: a byte is a byte is a byte, and expecting people to pay more for data simply because it comes from a particular source defies the idea of the open Web.