Packets shouldn't have equality: what should be required is that company x's packets/applications gets treated similarly to company y's. AT&T proposed a pay for quality scheme. I have not gotten into the details of these regulations or proposals. I think there should be QoS and that the networks access should allow 3rd party augmentation above the air-interface level. The network needs to become highly adaptive, self-organized and smart/Intelligent in how it combines, compresses, routes and caches and stores traffic. The operators can do that or the level can be opened up. The wireless operators should only control their portion of the access layer and let innovation through partners and 'do no harm' 3rd parties.
SKU the operators who want to be sticks in the mud.
The difficulty is that the FCC's agenda is being pushed from multiple forces.
The first source were web destinations and content providers like Google, Amazon and others that didn't want to have to pay a toll to reach the public. Nor should they. Unfortunately the CEO's of several large incumbent carriers had threatened to make content providers pay a toll for access and that greed understandably rallied the support of Congress, the FCC and a lot of people armed to block those ambitions. Since then nearly everyone with a stake in this issue monitored those providers for signs of potential abuse and the close oversight coupled with guidelines worked quite well striking the balance between content fairness and the operators need to manage their networks.
Now we have a completely new set of players that hijacked a fair-minded net neutrality initiative not for equal treatment for content as it originally began but as a means to overcome their own competitive weakness or force their own "me-too" application on any operator with an IP packet irrespective of the inefficiences and costs to the operator and the public.