> Basically, unintended consequences.

Generalized "unintended consequences" is, inasmuch as it can be used as an argument, always an argument against changing status quo policy, even when the change is superficially a reversion to status quo ante policy (because path-dependent signalling effects are one important source of unintended consequences.)

Evidence of specific consequences of the status quo policy (unintended or not) may be an argument for policy change, but unintended consequences potentially are in play with every policy change.

Yes, unintended consequences are in play with every policy change (not just 'potentially') and they are never considered nearly enough, which is the reason there are so many bad laws (and regulations and whatnot) on the books. People are way too eager to accept that a given change merely brings the benefits that the proponents promise with no downsides.

Interestingly in the case of net neutrality, it is relevant to keep in mind that the status quo is pretty good, having provided home markets for a very large number of the world's most successful internet companies. ISPs by and large are not doing the things that net neutrality prohibits. Netflix is exactly the kind of service that cable companies should want to shut down, but it's alive, well and extremely successful (Verizons peering shenanigans aren't to my best understanding covered by net neutrality). Early YouTube famously thrived on pirated content, which would even give cable companies a semi-legal cover for filtering them, but that didn't happen. The things that are wrong with the status quo are things that aren't addressed by net neutrality: connections are crappy and expensive. But crappy, expensive connections are fine under net neutrality, as long as they are neutrally crappy.

So, basically, none of the intended consequences of net neutrality does much more than perpetuate the status quo. But it adds a large body of new rules that nobody knows what could be used for, and God knows the US has its fair share of creative lawyers. I'm thinking about stuff like getting DMCA safe haven overturned on the back of some ambiguous phrasing written in the 1970s with phone lines in mind.

But hey, nobody says anything will happen. Nothing remarkable did for the past two years. Phonelines are regulated under the same regulations, and it's not obvious that anyone are missing out because of it.

Not 'made out to be', is today. A baseless argument for 'plausibility' about something you weren't around to experience 50 ("(? whenever)") years ago is one thing, but doesn't support taking a similar complacent head-in-the-sand approach in the modern day.

The progenitor of a given practice doesn't actually matter when its implications w.r.t. your actual system begin with some person learning about it deciding to use it to better their position. Modern day barons don't actually have to care about or hail the world of yesteryear that created the mechanisms by which they grow or maintain their wealth; getting hung up on them is as pointless as hanging onto precedent for its own sake.

I don't believe we've arrived at some kind of maximum level of understanding that means that we're better suited for making decisions with impact decades into the future. Sure, we've learned something things, but there are plenty of things to be wrong about still. When everybody agrees, somebody's not paying attention, as they say.

I used the cable monopoly decisions as an analogy, not because it's important as the progenitor of a practice. Back then, I'm sure reasonable people were convinced that it was a good deal, but the deal didn't foresee the internet, yet we're still stuck with it.

The entire basis of your argument is that you are unaware of any specific argument to support your claim.