Net Neutrality changes this how?
And why impose net neutrality regulations on all the markets where there are multiple competitive providers? Why not let localities where there's an actual problem fix it locally, rather than set new nationwide rules?
Because these are government created monopolies, as all enduring ones are. State and Federal for the telcos, local for the cablecos.
And as has been noted elsewhere in this discussion, for some inexplicable reason, as reported (strange, how only the FCC commissioners have access to these 300+ (!) pages, and for less than 3 weeks), this new regime leaves these government created last mile monopolies intact.
It's not an exaggeration nor necessarily hyperbole to call this Obamacare for the Internet, when it enshrines the existing order of things, merely wrapping it in even more regulation. And, somehow, I seriously doubt a reduction in prices for us or companies like Netflix.
Its not strange, its how the regulatory process always works. Until its been voted on, its not a formal regulation or regulatory proposal, and is not published. If it is passed by the commission, its published. It can be passed as a formal regulatory proposal for comment (like the NPRM from last year that this is a follow-up to) or as a regulatory order (what is most likely in this case, as they've issued a formal proposal for comment, gathered the comment, and are now finalizing how to move forward given the comment received on the proposal.)
"Title II regulation was designed for the plain-old-telephone-system monopolies, where there was even less choice (one provider!) than the very worst of current local broadband markets."
My mom has one ISP to choose from (and dismal service.) More than half the population of the US have access to a single broadband provider.
"The internet, without any FCC rules, thrived and completely eclipsed that slow-moving regulated market."
When behemoth broadband providers began openly plotting to predatorily damage some of the things that had helped provide for the internet's success, it was clear to most that some kind of regulations were needed.
"new federal rules will limit what ISPs can offer and charge, regardless of what paying customers prefer."
I have yet to hear from a single paying customer that actually wanted what the ISPs were plotting.
"Upstart services offering novel cross-subsidized speed/latency improvements will require federal pre-approval or risk outright prohibition."
Yeah, they would need approval if they wanted to offer that particular service, though I am not sure how to find that disappointing.
"This is not a victory for either the internet or the "little guy"."
Perhaps, why not see what actually happens before making broad speculative declarations, though?