What I think you're missing is that the current situation (that is, "Net Favoritism") came about because of a decision by that same FCC, an example of the regulatory capture you fear.

There never was such a thing as Internet access that wasn't defined by then-current FCC policy. Even the present cable and telephone companies are largely creations of FCC policies (and a federal judge). You're talking about a world that never existed, does not exist now, and never will exist.

I'd much rather they revisit their original mistake, so that ISPs other than the wireline owner had an equal shot. Because that would mean that people who live in a Comcast area (for example) would have multiple providers who could provide service across those cables. Otherwise, congressionally-mandated net neutrality is the best response that fits within the framework defined by that mistake.

Again, the ideal would be to bring choice to customers and competition to the high speed access market, no matter whose lines connected to their homes. This was real life during the dial-up days, when competition kept the telco-owned ISPs honest. It was a sad day when a corrupt FCC created a new, line-owner-centric world for high speed access. I'd rather see that changed than see a net neutrality law.

You'll agree once your provider decides that you may only run Windows on devices which access the Internet, and that you may only use their provided customized browser and antivirus software. You just haven't been gored deeply enough yet by the present power imbalance.

I'm not missing that; I'm assuming that letting the FCC have at it again will make things worse, not better