If you want to keep unprincipled actors in the datamining sphere from getting (too much) information about you, you *can* avoid patronizing internet services that are run by them. That means you don't get to enjoy 95% of the internet, because every-fucking-thing is run/owned/exploited/controlled by Google, Facebook, Akamai, Cloudflare...
Actually, you can't, because almost invariably your immediate ISP will be run by an unprincipled actor in the data-mining sphere, and any VPN provider you choose to hide your traffic will also likely be surreptitiously run by an unprincipled actor in the data-mining sphere (not to mention that others will wonder why you feel the need to hide your traffic from your ISP, and will then suspect you of wrongdoing).
The real problem here is that the people making the decisions at this point (including this Congressperson) lack sufficient understanding of the difference between an ISP—a company providing the Internet service for your home or business—and an Internet content provider, e.g. Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. The law that they blocked applied only to the former, not to the latter, precisely because you do have a lot of choices in the content providers, but rarely have more than one viable ISP option, and essentially never more than two.
If you read his statement as "If we treated Internet content providers as regulated utilities...", the statement makes perfect sense and is perfectly correct. What it fails to recognize is that most Americans get their actual home broadband service from a regulated monopoly. Internet service providers have always been regulated utilities, from the very beginning, albeit a less regulated arm of a regulated industry, whether that industry is the telephone provider or the cable company.
The only real competition, meager as it might be, is among cellular providers. Unfortunately, because of the high cost of cellular broadband, it is generally practical only for people who can't get wired service. If you look at areas that have access to traditional wired Internet service, I doubt even 1% of those folks get their home Internet service from someone other than the cable company, the phone company, or a CLEC leasing the lines from the phone company. The supposed "competition" is so rare that it is essentially lost in the noise.
The bottom line is this: As long as regulatory decisions are made by people who double-click Internet Explorer and think that it is "the Internet", we're going to continue to have brain damaged regulatory policies that screw consumers. No 73-year-old is qualified to do that job, period. Frankly, I have my doubts about anyone old enough to realistically get elected to Congress being qualified. Even folks in their early forties only grew up with the Internet if their parents worked at a university, so maybe single-digit percentages of them are qualified. You have to get down to folks in their early thirties and younger to have a non-negligible probability of competence, and folks that young generally haven't bubbled up to the federal level yet.
Call it age discrimination if you want, but putting a 73-year-old in charge of regulating the Internet is like putting a strictly adherent Old Order Mennonite (of the horse-and-buggy-only variety) in charge of the DOT. You can't usefully understand how to govern something that you don't understand, and you can't understand something without being immersed in it.