The nn rules basically say it's up to the user to decide what content he wants to call up on the internet provided he's willing to pay for the bandwidth, and the ISP can't charge differently for the same content from different providers.
I have no problem with the ISP’s having different tiers of service and charging appropriately for speed or even on data limits on streaming or uploading absent restrictions on the content provider. But like you said, they shouldn’t be allowed to slow down content based on who they want to be winners and losers based on their ownership or shared ownership. But it isn’t just movie streaming services.
To put it another way, the Huffington Post is owned by Oath Inc. which is a subsidiary of Verizon Communications. So let’s say in the area where I live the only ISP providing high speed internet is Verizon, I’m not talking cellular service, but Fios.
Let’s say that Verizon allows their Fios subscribers to access Huffington Post at the highest speed at which you have subscribed and paid for, the pages and content load at lighting speed. But let’s say you like going to Breitbart instead. But since Verizon sees Breitbart as a competitor to Huffington Post which it owns it and perhaps even doesn’t like the content on Breitbart, they throttle it, meaning when you try to access Breitbart, the pages are painfully slow in loading, if they even load at all.
That is what I understood that nn would, at least in theory prevent.
I have no problem with grocery stores having different brands of potato chips and charging appropriately for shelf space for other brands. But they shouldn’t be allowed to price shelf space based on who they want to be winners and losers.
They also shouldn’t be allowed to put their own brands in proven strategically-advantageous locations or aisle endcaps because it puts the other brands at a disadvantage.