There is unquestionably a lot of overreaction. There are some things this is not:

- A threat to freedom of speech.
- Denial of service to anybody on the Internet.
- Corporations deciding what you can and cannot view.
- Any kind of issue of neutrality with regard to media type, i.e., streaming vs. text browsing.

But peel back all the panic, and I think the threat is still something significant. What it amounts to is this:

- Telcos want to charge content providers for better network performance than they're currently getting. This pretty much necessarily means that those who don't pay will receive poorer service than they're currently getting.

- Nobody wants to pay, but if they have to pay, the big corporations are going to do it, and the small business owners are unlikely to be able to, resulting in an inability to compete as fairly in the marketplace as they can now. Don't think even tiny bit of extra delay on page loads won't make a big difference for text browsing sites, to say nothing of streaming video sites, which are even more reliant on performance.

- There is currently no law prohibiting telcos from charging for improved network performance. But with the telcos supporting net neutrality until now, it's not been an issue. Lately, though, there have been rumblings about instituting this tiered performance model, so the issue has arisen.

- A Congressional bill that included a clause that enforces network neutrality was struck down. Then a subsequent bill, a revision to the first, lacked the net neutrality clause and was passed by the House. If the Senate confirms, no law with regard to net neutrality will have changed, as far as I can understand, BUT it seems that the telcos want to established tiered service and will do so unless Congress actively says otherwise. So it would be nice if they did.

Whether you agree that all this adds up to a likely problem or not, I guess is your prerogative. But I think it's clear that this is weightier than that silly "email tax" scare.