In any event, this is pure virtue signalling, since the federal government clearly has supremacy over state laws for national telecommunication networks, and this will be overturned by the courts.
Net Neutrality doesn't prevent ISPs from selling more bandwidth to netflix, it only prevents ISPs from treating the traffic differently due to the identity of either the sender or the receiver. This means that Comcast can't slow your traffic down just because you are sending data to and receiving data from netflix instead of using Hulu (which they partially own).
So, the law does prevent ISPs from offering "faster" internet, however you define it. I still don't see the distinction between allowing consumers to pay for faster internet, but prohibiting content providers from doing the same thing. I pay more for 250 mbps. Why can't Comcast offer Netflix additional speed for more money, which would be illegal under this law? As I understand it, slowing down your competitors is already illegal under the FTC rules.
Because broadband internet access in the US is substantially provided by effectively local monopolies there is a huge potential for abuse here, specifically in the form of "rent seeking". Without Net Neutrality there is a huge potential for ISPs to monetize access to you, to carve up, control, and censor what they allow to run over their pipes. This isn't hypothetical, it's happened. ISPs have blocked access to VOIP and voice chat services (like skype) because it competed with their own offerings. They've blocked access to specific webpages because they disagreed with the content on those sites. They've blocked access to streaming video. They've intercepted and redirected search queries (to sites like google) to their own commercial content. They've blocked payment services that competed with their own services. And so on.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Yes I know that is a supposed truism inherent in the Constitution itself.
My question:
The FCC explicitly decided that it didn't want to enforce NN provisions (it gave up that power), so why can't states regulate it themselves?
You went completely off the rails with your second, and you should take a moment and review the Bill of Rights before you comment again because it's hilariously wrong.