This language expressly preserves the states' ability to pass laws that regulate the Telecom industry. It limits the FCC's preemption to a specific example not relevant to NN, and says states can regulate in any other way so long as the regs are neutral.
Asserting a preemption or dormant commerce clause argument in light of that language will be very difficult for the FCC. Conservatives argued against preemption successfully in 2015, in Nixon v. Missouri municipal league. The conservative argument would actually save NN here.
I'm not an expert in this area but it seems to me that the pro-NN side would have a great argument in court.
I'm no expert in the field either, and I'm mostly cribbing from Constitutional Law courses I took 10 years ago.
I think the ability for states to impose net neutrality will come down to this phrase: "requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers." The Trump administration already is making the case that net neutrality laws are not necessary. I disagree with that assertion, but I can still see them litigating this issue if states create their own net neutrality regulations. Otherwise it will be a pretty Pyrrhic victory to repeal net neutrality, only to have enormous states like California and New York put it back into place. The big carriers won't be happy with that. And what the courts do with it may ultimately come down to a political issue, as it would likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.