Thanks for asking the question, as it most often the case in these types of things, it's not the immediate nature that will have any effect at all, despite what you might here. It's the implication of what it might become. The case for "Net Neutrality" was firmly established in 1936 and, of course, applied to telecommunications. When the internet providers (ISP's) started fooping around with the delivery for their own selfish reasons, the Government attempted to apply this 1936 Act to the internet. Sort of like telling a person they can't park their car in front of a fire hydrant when the law plainly says all horses must be tied to designated hitching posts. This thing won't hold water until it addresses modern issues. Consider this:
The Supreme Court says the FCC has the authority to classify and regulate the Internet in whichever way makes the most sense to the agency. Today the FCC says DNS and caching are fundamental to neutrality among internet users. 2 years ago they said it had no effect at all. Heck, Congress hasn't weighed in on what the internet is since 1996 when they called it "an information service" and beyond that it's whatever the FCC says they think it is.
Until the government can define exactly what the internet is, like the 1936 Act did with telecommunications, Net Neutrality and the regulation of it are just a bunch of words.
It definitely needs to be regulated, and for that reason I hate to see what has just happened.