The thing about the article is that it points that it would be very hard to determine how to "limit traffic to critical infrastructure". But "conveniently", when a state has a mandate that "must be done" while being hard to do surgically, that state has mandate to muck-about as it sees fit (that's why search warrants are supposed to specific, etc).

So "conveniently", it may turn out that to implement the bill, ISPes would be required to install flexible remote controlled switches of various sorts. Meaning that the real impact of the bill would be the configuration of a remote-controlled censoring system. IE, a Great-Firewall-of-America "by accident" (yeah).