Since you are already modded up to 5, I'll reply in verbal support. The OSI stack is more of an abstraction after the first 3.5 layers -- the top three layers are all about the software that uses the network, not the network per se, and honestly I think that the idea of applying "net neutrality" to the application, presentation, and session layers is an absurdity as they have never really been a "networking" issue but more a matter of choice of software design at the two ends of the connection. For example, one way of interpreting "neutrality" would be a requirement that the designers of internet-based games write their games to be playable on any top level windowing system in all operating systems -- something like under Steam on steroids. If I wrote a simple game intended to run only under Linux and function only using one particular graphics stack and library set AND wrote it to run over an ISP-run network, I personally could be held in violation of a 7 layer net neutrality law. Imagine Apple, Microsoft, Linux, BSD, OS/2 all being forced by "net neutrality" to make their presentation layers interoperable. A nightmare, impossible to enforce, and stupid -- it would actually inhibit competition, not support it.
What the poster INTENDED, I think, is that the ISP (which is really the NN rules are all about, because they ARE granted a de facto near-monopoly over network connection in many if not most locales -- very few places have a choice of (say) four or five ISPs all with their own wires, and even those places are forced to move packets over common backbones belonging to many different companies (do a traceroute to a dozen distant places or services that you might use if you don't believe me) -- not differentiate their treatment of the bottom 3-4 layers on the basis of the toplevel application being run, but applying NN rules to the application layers themselves is IMO clearly inappropriate at the level of an FCC action and an open invitation to enforce a "universal standard" for all of these layers that believe me, you Would Not Like if you had it because OBVIOUSLY that "standard" would be set by Micro$oft and/or Apple or maybe Google and guess who would control it and regulate it and manipulate it to literally squash all competition that didn't PAY them for complying with the top layer "standards" they set...
I personally do agree that including TCP/UDP in the NN rules makes some sense, but that is primarily because the application layer INTERFACE and the transport layer ROUTING are heavily intertwined -- TCP is designed to make a network connection "reliable" by handling out of order deliver, transmission timeouts, and so on, and an ISP who wanted to MIGHT be able to screw around with this within some set or rules applied "strictly" only to the first three layers. Hence a need for "3.5" layers -- basically requiring ISPs to remain in the business of selling connections that provide their clients with an IP address, some level of bandwidth, some guarantee of QoS that is not modulated by the particular use the client makes of the network within the bounds of some Acceptable Use Agreement. In other words, holding them responsible as a public utility like a power company not to constantly turn off the power to, say, a predominantly black neighborhood in order to keep the power on in the white neighborhood next door, or worse, not to keep the power reliably on unless you buy all of your light bulbs and electrical appliances from the power company itself.
At the same time, I am sensitive to the practical realities of networking (I've written network applications and managed networks all the way back to twisted pair networks without any surviving name). If you are running a network, even in a single building, with your very own routers and DHCP server(s) and so on, that network is GOING to have a finite bandwidth. If you have power users in your organization, one of the IS going to be perfectly capable of saturating your network and degrading the QoS to all of your other users -- the sort of thing that would routinely happen in my small neighborhood when I still used Verizon and phone-line based internet and would try to (for example) install a few GB of Linux at 10 MB/sec -- I've been both the bad guy saturating the lines and slowing everybody else down and the poor sap that wonders why his internet connection is so slow and it is because everybody in the neighborhood is watching Netflix at once and the entire network is bottlenecked so that everybody's service sucks until a few people give up and go to bed.
There IS no "good" free market solution to this. Nor is there a "good" solution to providing internet services AT ALL to people who live on farms up in the hills where NOBODY -- cable company, phone company, fiber company -- is EVER going to actually make money pulling a wire/fiber to them, the amortization time exceeds the lifetime of the medium. Again, we are thrown back on history -- the rural electrification act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... This was the original government-backed "neutrality" plan, and it was successful. At this point we literally cannot imagine a home without electricity, and thanks to the government backed "neutrality" plan, we don't have to. This is the entire concept of the public utility -- in exchange for (near) monopoly markets the company is required by law to provide that service to all that want it at capped/negotiated rates and completely independent of what particular use a consumer puts the service to -- they can use an electrical saw to cut wood -- or the cadavers of their serial-killer victims -- in their basement and the power company doesn't get to sell them the saw or dictate the use they put it to, that is up to somebody else.
Net neutrality therefore HAS a substantial precedent. Indeed, the FCC IS the agency charged with regulating internet, phone, and cable, including wireless versions of the first two. Public utilities have ALWAYS had this sort of oversight, and the US has ALWAYS required that public utility services be provided on an ecumenical, "neutral" basis within the capacity of the provider and provision for them to make a limited/regulated profit when they have a de facto monopoly, and at the same time to compete when there are real alternatives (where they will usually make LESS profit than they might be allowed as a true single provider public utility). We lose absolutely nothing by requiring neutrality at the level of the law, or at the level of FCC control. It is the JOB of the FCC to provide it and to regulate its profit, just as it regulates who gets to use the bandwidth around 700 kHz in the AM spectrum in any given transmission domain.
Would electricity be cheaper if we didn't provide all of those farmers and rural homeowners with long-distance electrical lines that cost more to install than the company will ever make back in power bill profits from those farms and homes? Without any doubt. Indeed, in a pure capitalism, those homes would NEVER get electricity, because there is literally no profit in it for any company that provides it. Which is a really excellent argument for not living in a pure free-market capitalism.
It is more than a bit ironic that a substantial fraction of Trump voters in the last election, who de facto elected the man who appointed a man who is literally owned lock stock and barrel by the major communications utilities to end net neutrality, supported in a vote by a long list of Republican congressmen all of whom received substantial sums of campaign money from these SAME utilities, live in homes in the rural countryside or on farms or even in small communities that would not have electricity or phone service at all if it weren't for the simple fact that we implemented "neutrality" rules for those pubic utilities some 70 or 80 years ago that required companies to act AGAINST their short term bottom line and (frankly) charge urban customers more for electricity in order to subsidize the electricity provided to the rural customers, just as they do today. If these pseudo-libertarians ever woke up to the fact that if their libertarian dream became reality, the very next day their lights would go out and never go on again, perhaps they would change their worldview around and think positively about a net neutrality, a national health service, and all of the other ways where we can "insure" our collective security and comfort by recognizing that there are, in fact, collective "profits" for us to earn as a society by means of DEVIATING from the local optimization process represented by "pure capitalism", especially pure capitalism that is de facto oligarchy in disguise, with businesses essentially regulating who gets to run for public office in the first place by controlling the purse that actually funds election campaigns of politicians of both parties.