But all the points mentioned were equally ridiculous, vague arguments. Not once did he point out any actual, concrete problem, just a parade of hypothetical horribles based on vague, non-specific notions of maybe applicable law.

• Forbearance: Oh noes! The government is going to make some decisions about what is applicable to ISPs versus phone companies! There could totally be problems! I can't be bothered to actually point out any, but there are a "host of problems" that this maybe could lead to! /s
• Government control of internet: The "precedent" of government abuse of internet is irrelevant, because net neutrality has nothing to do with government deciding what goes over the internet; it's about the government forcing ISPs to also not play favorites with what goes over the internet. Beyond that, all the "precedents" he cites are dictatorships that oppress their people both online and off. The precedent in the U.S., meanwhile, is pretty awesome, but he ignores that; we'll all of a sudden become North Korea, because, y'know, regulation, i.e., the boogie man!
• No more motivation for new infrastructure: 1) What, was there motivation for new infrastructure before? No, there was none, because most municipalities voted in telecom monopolies (and the places that don't have been divided up between the major players in their "gentlemen's agreement" to not compete in certain markets), so there's no competition, and therefore no incentive now, Title II won't change any of that. 2) Enforcing net neutrality has nothing to do with the incentives for infrastructure; the incentive for improving infrastructure comes from the ability to provide better, faster service to your customers than your competitor (which, remember, there are none). The incentive that net neutrality changes is about working out deals with other companies and/or customers about how much to charge for the same capacity. These are unrelated incentives. He seems to be assuming that Title II brings new regulations for infrastructure improvements, but he doesn't actually say that, much less say what they are. Once again, boogie man. Boogie man lite, maybe.
• Regulating under Title I: He says the FCC had the power to challenge companies under Title I already. That was true, they could challenge them, but the courts recently came down and said, "Nope, Title I doesn't let you enforce net neutrality." So they can technically still challenge the ISPs, but they'd lose every time. We already tried that game and it was struck down as outside Title I's power, that's why Title II was on the table in the first place. This is flat-out misleading. Title I can't enforce net neutrality, as a matter of law, and to insinuate that it can is fraudulent.

This article literally repeats the ISPs' inaccurate, vague talking points, relying on the power of buzzwords like competition and regulation to drum up baseless fears, while offering precisely zero actual examples of an adverse impact. He is uncritically repeating the telecom lobby's made-up boogie men arguments. I have to come to the conclusion that he is, in fact, on their payroll, to present such a mindless, groundless piece as reporting.