America is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. I know it's the trendy thing to chant but it's factually incorrect.
In modern political discourse when people say "democracy" they are not referring to a direct democracy. I know it's "trendy" to make this contradiction but it's pedantic and doesn't contribute to a discussion. We're a polyarchy, if you want to be a dick about it.
For years we had no choice in cable, phones, etc because of regulation.
For quite some time we had only once choice in telecom (Bell) due to lack of regulation. It was the big bad government that broke up the monopoly, giving consumers a choice and competitors a chance.
The Internet comes along and shattering all that and for some reason a lot of people are like "I hate choices and competition I want to go back to only having one choice."
Again, FCC Title II is not nationalization of all internet providers. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea but it's quite wrong. It just restricts what they can do to moving data between point A and point B for a fee. This is the way internet providers have mostly behaved up until the last couple years, when they began testing the notion of network neutrality, which is what sparked this whole debate.
I'll give you an example of why this is bad for consumer choice and for competition. Many consumers don't want to buy TV service or movies-on-demand from Verizon or Time Warner, in favor of just watching Netflix. It's the internet delivering choice, right? So the ISP's responded by slowing Netflix traffic to the point where users can't stream, even though the consumers are paying for enough bandwidth to stream video. Bad for competition, bad for consumer choice.
Then, the ISP's turned to Netflix and said "pay us $$$$$ if you want your traffic to move smoothly" and Netflix caved and did just that. Now, nobody can compete with Netflix unless they can also pay this fee. It's extortion. It makes it more difficult to enter the market. Again, bad for competition, and less consumer choice.
This can potentially even bleed into freedom of speech... For example, if an ISP doesn't like a certain political message, they could block their users from seeing it by slowing that traffic down to a crawl. Only the voices with deep pockets would be heard.
Title II regulation would put an end to this sort of brass-knuckle business tactic in which the ISP's are engaging. It's a good thing for consumers and for competition on the internet.