Okay, so correct me if I am wrong.
They can charge more if they want, under the proposed rules, but they have to provide the same speed to everyone for "fairness"?
They charge content providers (Google, Amazon, Microsoft for example) for priority "Tiered" access which results in faster speeds for those with the financial backing. Content creators who can't afford to fork out get stuck with lower speed connections.
That all sounds fine, except the biggest advantage of the Internet that
all content created by everyone was treated equally which meant the playing field was even when groups like Amazon and Google first started competing. If AOL had been able to pay a telecom to provide faster service simply by virtue of their money, the competition would have been crushed. And no competition equals stagnation.
Then you delve into the uglier side with definitions of "Minimum service", there's no rule that says what the minimum service speed has to be, and likely TeleComs will get to decide that.
The biggest danger of losing net neutrality you need to be aware of is the loss of dynamic and fair competition. Basically it will turn the Internet into everything else. Money holds a disproportionate amount of leverage. Leverage gained by artificial manipulation.