I wrote my senator who is in favor of the repeal and this is his response (which I don't endorse - just forwarding as a view point):
"However, I do not agree with the FCC’s 2015 “Open Internet Order,” which abruptly decided, on a partisan vote, to apply outdated, utility-style regulations to the internet. This inappropriate regulatory framework was intended for monopolistic telephone companies in the 1930s. Instead of leaving the internet vulnerable to the consistent threat of interpretation and change by a group of unelected FCC commissioners, Congress should craft bipartisan legislation that preserves a fair and open internet. If the FCC reclassifies internet service providers, legislation passed by Congress will make policies governing the internet transparent and consistent; rather than subject to change from one administration to the next. This is an issue of great importance that requires a thoughtful, transparent debate on the best path forward."
Unless your senator has sponsored or cosponsored a bill advancing this platform, they are essentially lying to you. There is no need for the FCC to repeal the 2015 act for Congress to set up laws on the issue.
Even if you follow your senator's logic, you only need to compare current telcos to Ma Bell and draw some comparisons in order to toss out the idea that the regulatory framework is inappropriate.
"However, I do not agree with the FCC’s 2015 “Open Internet Order,” which abruptly decided, on a partisan vote, to apply outdated, utility-style regulations to the internet. This inappropriate regulatory framework was intended for monopolistic telephone companies in the 1930s. Instead of leaving the internet vulnerable to the consistent threat of interpretation and change by a group of unelected FCC commissioners, Congress should craft bipartisan legislation that preserves a fair and open internet. If the FCC reclassifies internet service providers, legislation passed by Congress will make policies governing the internet transparent and consistent; rather than subject to change from one administration to the next. This is an issue of great importance that requires a thoughtful, transparent debate on the best path forward."