He misrepresents the other side's arguments and makes inaccurate claims himself. There has been many examples of telecoms blocking competitors or pushing consumers to use their own (often mediocre) products over competitors.
There likely is room for some reasonable middle-ground that allows for some 'non-neutral' activity to truly benefit consumers but people don't trust that our political system can find it. It's much more likely that unfettered telecoms will further exploit their monopolies to collect data, segment the market (eliminate any consumer surplus), deincentivize competitors, push their mediocre products, or otherwise find ways of increasing revenue beyond being a 'dump-pipe' because they've exhausted the margin in that. They is is almost expected behavior from a commercial entity, it's the government's job to keep them in check.
1. There is always the possibility to reimplement legislation if problems arise.
2. Price discrimination can increase consumer surplus.
3. Increasing revenue from other businesses can allow ISPs to compete on price for consumers.
4. Most of the time, the proper role of the government is to step back and let competition happen. Unless you're pretty damn sure that interfering is going to produce a better outcome you shouldn't bother with regulation.
There likely is room for some reasonable middle-ground that allows for some 'non-neutral' activity to truly benefit consumers but people don't trust that our political system can find it. It's much more likely that unfettered telecoms will further exploit their monopolies to collect data, segment the market (eliminate any consumer surplus), deincentivize competitors, push their mediocre products, or otherwise find ways of increasing revenue beyond being a 'dump-pipe' because they've exhausted the margin in that. They is is almost expected behavior from a commercial entity, it's the government's job to keep them in check.