It says that, if your network is transporting 100Mb of data, you can't treat that 100Mb any differently than any other 100Mb of data
I call bullshit. You'd be pretty pissed if they treated your 100Mb of streaming video call the same way as a 100Mb of zipped documents in my email attachment. This is because my email doesn't really care about how long the packets take to arrive or in which order they arrive in. Strictly speaking what you describe forces the network to either bust a nut trying to stream my zipped documents into an account that I won't look at until Monday morning or allow you to sit there staring at a screen while it buffers your video until it finishes.
Getting back to reality, both sides greatly oversimplify the argument and I'd wager it's largely because most of the folk arguing on both sides only parrot the soundbites they think understand. The net neutrality directive was bad because it removed the impetus for congress to actually put any thought into the problem which some members were actively doing at the time but the attitude of the impatient was to preempt any attempt, largely at the behest of folk like Google. Funny story, Google and Amazon have their little spat about who can stream and sell what on each others devices and ensure certain incompatibilities so content can't flow smoothly, never mind Apple's own little walled garden, yet nobody complains about their infractions against "net neutrality" which they began well before any vote occurred. The bad old days of AOL vs CompuServe aren't coming back and net neutrality didn't make them go away.