Now, see the history of television and radio.
No, it isn't. Laws and regulations are different things, and while Title II provides lots of pages of regulatory authority, the 2015 Open Internet order, as well as actually providing the Title II classification, adopts the specific regulations under Title II authority that the FCC would apply.
The suggestions that other authorities that were specifically not used would somehow attach themselves to the internet is dishonest FUD (but that's pretty much all the anti-neutrality camp has ever had.)
I worked at a small ISP in Utah called XMission a while ago. We were pushing net neutrality hard when it came up last time. We didn't seem at all worried about the barrier for entry and growth.
I was an x-mission customer till we moved into a condo that is only serviced by Google Fiber.. I'm still happy with Google, but I'd love to support X-mission when possible, they're truly a standout company imho.
How is prohibiting ISPs from blocking their customs from accessing lawful content, prohibiting ISPs from throttling lawful content, and prohibiting paid prioritization going to lead to censorship?
Those are the main rules from the 2015 Open Internet Order. There are a few other less important rules in the approximately 8 pages of the Order, so if that is where you think the risk of censorship resides, feel free to point out the details.
(If you are confused by me saying 8 pages, because you've seen Pai and others waving around a 300-400 page document and claiming that it was the 2015 Open Internet Order...they were being intentionally misleading. That document was the actual rules, all 8 pages of them, plus a long analysis of the legal background for regulating net neutrality, and responses to the issues raised in the millions of comments received).