There's a giveaway in my opinion in the length the NPRM goes to in questioning the necessity of the existing rules, and the small space afforded to providing a

There's a giveaway in my opinion in the length the NPRM goes to in questioning the necessity of the existing rules, and the small space afforded to providing a legal basis for enforcing them should Title II authority be revoked as proposed. The idea seems to be: if the rules themselves (no throttling, no paid prioritization etc) are not necessary (i.e. voluntary), neither is a legal framework to support them. So statements that net neutrality is not under fire here, only the current legal basis for it, sound pretty hollow in my opinion. By failing to provide an alternative authority to support the existing rules, they're sentencing them to unenforceability and effective repeal. (edit: grammar)