Either the ISP aspect of the Internet is open to regulation or it's not. That's true right now. If it isn't, any net neutrality effort is going to get knocked

Either the ISP aspect of the Internet is open to regulation or it's not. That's true right now. If it isn't, any net neutrality effort is going to get knocked down sooner or later. You have little to worry about. If it is, this is the right kind of regulation to have, because it prevents a potential (and arguably current) oligarchy from effectively regulating the service aspect of the Internet. I'm all for free market economics as the rational default when starting from an even playing field. However, the current market leaders got where they are by being treated as utilities from the start, in terms of subsidy and privilege for placement of infrastructure. It doesn't make sense to give them protectionist advantages, then go hands off from there. There's a great argument for not doing the former in the first place (albeit one that probably would have prevented the Internet at current scale), but once you've committed you have to follow through. I'll worry about the slippery slope of further regulation when it starts happening. Right now, I'm considerably more worried about ICE and ICANN jurisdiction issues and copyright/trade treaties, as far as threats to the Internet by the American government and corporate structure go. What's more interesting about this to me is the "only 25Mbps+ is broadband" news bit from yesterday. Does that create a big loophole for exemption from Title II for the grand majority of US internet service that doesn't meet that bar?