reclassify broadband Internet access services as "telecommunication services" under Title II of the Communications Act. This would allow the government to regulate the Internet under the same rules designed for "Ma Bell" in 1934, which hampered innovation and growth for more than fifty years.
Key word, "allow". Yes, this re-classification would allow that -- no disagreement. But that does not entail the government is actually planning to regulate the internet like Ma Bell in 1934.
If I buy a shotgun -- that purchase would allow me to shoot my girlfriend. Does that mean I'm going to shoot my girlfriend? Of course not. That's absurd. However, this is exactly the logic Senator Tillis is using here. The re-classification would allow that regulation in a technical and legal sense, but does not mean they are doing it.
Truth should be said the Net Neutrality adopted by the FCC looks nothing like a government takeover.
Net Neutrality is not the establishment of a government-run monopoly (for example, like the one they have in Germany.)
Net Neutrality is not a government cornering of the market onto a select corporation.
Net Neutrality is not an attempt to establish or fill offices full of PUC employees. (Public Utilities Commission)
Net Neutrality is not government "pork". It is not a kick-back.
Net Neturality is not a federal "bride" to sway or cajole state reps.
Net Neutrality is not a "job killing" environmental regulation on manufacturing.
In shrift, there is absolutely nothing about Net Neutrality that looks like any of the tried-and-tested tricks used by the federal government in 200+ years. A more fitting analogy is that Net Neutrality is equivalent to other FCC regulations on certain devices which cannot broadcast on military or law enforcement bandwidths. A large percentage of electronic devices in your home and your car have these stickers on them for "FCC compliance". Those regulations never led to a government takeover of any kind. They were just common sense.