Yeah, I smelled some bias on this story. First off, all politicians are corrupt no matter what side of the aisle. That said, no politician would declare war on a bill like described in this article for such a meaningless reason as "Unnecessary regulation" if the bill were as good as this article makes it seem. They'd appear stupid and their re-elections would be threatened. Tea party demands can only be taken so far at this point.
Secondly, the fact that the reason stated is so bland and vague it makes me think that there was something else at work here, and this is all from the first few paragraphs.
Also, a newsletter I receive advocating video game rights, typically a liberal domain given the gratuitous violence and occasional sexual themes in video game conflicting with traditional conservative values, cried foul at this ruling which puts people on both sides arguing against it. Which, consequently, is completely different from how this article portrayed it with Dems in favor and Repubs against, split right down the aisle.
Finally, we get to part four with the tiered pricing. This bites consumers in rather sensitive places: their wallets.
Honestly, net neutrality seems like a great idea but this does not accomplish what everyone said it was out to.