It seems to me that the question they asked is overly broad:
> it is a good idea to let companies that send video or other content to consumers pay more to Internet service providers for the right to send that traffic using faster or higher quality service
That could just as easily be interpreted to mean the content providers are paying their own ISP for faster service which net neutrality would allow as it could to mean the content providers paying their users' ISP which net neutrality doesn't allow.
The really big ones that send really huge amounts of data to a really large number of users do that, but that is definitely not a majority of content providers.
> it is a good idea to let companies that send video or other content to consumers pay more to Internet service providers for the right to send that traffic using faster or higher quality service
That could just as easily be interpreted to mean the content providers are paying their own ISP for faster service which net neutrality would allow as it could to mean the content providers paying their users' ISP which net neutrality doesn't allow.