This will get me downvoted and possibly assassinated but the bill makes sense from a point of view and it's not 100% wrong. Recently, Title II passed, right? That gives the FCC the power to regulate internet access like a utility. We all know this.

The thing about it though just as one example, is that when the FCC began regulating things like radio, you have to have special certifications and government approval. You have to promise that you're operating the station in good faith and will abide by state and federal laws etc. There is concern from certain people (myself included) that while the FCC is claiming they'll do the right thing now to uphold neutrality, but what's stopping them from implementing measures in the future requiring all websites to register with the government? Run it all through the NSA before it's published online? Pay fees and taxes on domains? Internet operator licenses? This could become a very big problem.

So while the FCC is pledging to uphold net neutrality now and that's all well and good, what we've essentially done is hand control of the internet over to the government as opposed to corporate ISPs like Comcast/Time Warner etc. What's to stop them from using that to make further "regulations" down the line that become a hindrance or even threaten net neutrality in direct or indirect ways? We are just going to take the government at their word that they'll be responsible caretakers? The government can't even get school lunch programs right and we're expecting them to shepherd the greatest platform for information and free expression the world has ever seen?

This bill is simply an attempt to limit government power. Are the people proposing it shills on the corporate dime? Yes. Is it an optimal solution? Definitely not, but I do agree with them that we need something in place to keep the government in check.