I can kinda see what you mean, but that’s bad comparison. Ambulances go fast to save someone’s life. ISPs want to get more money or more control over their users. ISPs won’t come up with rules that are beneficial for users, but with stuff that makes things convenient for them.
You mentioned streaming video vs reading news. What if streamed video is school stuff that teenager watches and news is about Kardashians? ISPs most surely will target intense transfers over light stuff, but what good would it do? They don’t have to care as much about infrastructure and service they provide. They can easily say ‘sorry man, you can’t stream this 4k video because it’s lesser priorioty, we will only allow 720p’, and there’s no way to argue about ISP not providing the service you pay for.
My point of view, which may be idealistic and technically insane, but it fits my logical standpoint, if I pay for some transfer speed, I should get that transfer speed and I should be able to use it for what I want. Back in good old days, when cable internet was starting in Poland, contracts had MINIMAL speed, if you paid for 10Mbps, you got exactly that (sometimes a bit more and then it was an awesome day). Now, we have clauses like ‘up to 100Mbps’, clever legal trick so you already can’t complain.
I don’t care about politics in all this. ISPs provide a service, this service is ‘just’ to give me cable. I know it’s US, but it could be a precedent, so I don’t want it to happen at all.
I have one more comparison, what they plan to do is an equivalent of ‘you can only watch this tv show A, becaue it’s good for you and everyone AND you can only watch 2 hours of tv show B’ for a cable tv. No one would have agreed to that, why should we allow it in context of internet? 