[MoochPooch]

The danger is that once federal regulation is admitted as to web content source, it could become intrusive and endorse or even require some forms of discrimination.

Shows, ironically, that "neutrality" really does not exist. Or rather, to be neutral & involved. Everything is subjective.

The only way to stay neutral is to butt out.

[Rockingham]

There are always going to be rules, whether made by government or by private actors. Since Internet Service Providers tend to be local monopolies, market forces are weak and impaired, making some sort of utility style regulation of ISPs advisable. The issue then becomes the nature and extent of regulations and who should make them.

In practice, cable companies are the dominant ISPs and tend to easily subvert the current model of limited local regulation. To the extent that regulation is needed, primary but limited state regulation would probably be best and would make for strong and effective opposition to broad federal regulation.

Moreover, primary state level regulation of ISPs would permit experimentation with disputed regulatory concepts like net neutrality while setting up competition between states as a restraint against foolish and excessive regulation. There is wisdom of letting the states function as "laboratories of democracy" and we ought to rely on it as to net neutrality.