If that were the case, then Congress wouldn't have a law that says "Here's a description of one type of commerce, you get $amount_of_authority over it. And here's a description of another type of commerce, and you get $substantially_more_amount_of_authority over it."

If they can just always pick the latter, why even bother describing the former, and the subset of authority that goes with it? The FCC has zero self-interest in regulating its power.

You'll need to provide a citation, but in any event, the FCC would have been incorrect, as it is now.

Wikipedia provides a nice write-up of the state of affairs since the Telecommunications Act of 1996:

If the FCC successfully claims that the Internet is a Title II service (it's not), then besides being blatantly dishonest, they also get the authority to censor the Internet and impose draconian rules like they did on the PSTN.

e.g. did you know it was illegal to plug your own phone into the PSTN? Welcome to Title II.

With Title II Internet, the FCC has done nothing and opened the door to great harm in the future, all at once.

GP said the FCC doesn't censor, I called them out. Case closed.

If you want to argue the FCC won't censor the Internet, well the FCC just answered that:

... Shall not block lawful content

lawful content? I don't remember any such stipulation before. How about saying goodbye to Wikileaks? The Pirate Bay?

What double-charging?

If I want an Internet connection, it doesn't matter who I am or what content I'm serving, I have to pay for it. Period.

Sometimes it's money, sometimes it's a symmetrical peering arrangement. Netflix can't do the latter, since they kind of take up a majority of traffic. Any network with them is necessarily going to be asymmetrical.

Netflix and Comcast aren't innocent little kindergarteners, they're big boys. They can handle their network pricing disputes on their own.

Corporations are persons so they can be be a party to contracts and be legally held to them. I mean, you want corporations to be accountable, right?

Also, what part of "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" don't you understand?

Not "Congress shall make no law against individuals", not "Congress shall make no law against unions". NO law. Any law restricting the movement of speech, including political contributions, is unconstitutional. You don't need to bring "person" into it.

Funny, the Internet doesn't look like the PSTN to me. And I had no clue it was invented in 1934, Al Gore looks pretty young! But I'm a VoIP professional, what do I know?

The FCC Title II rules might get overturned?! The Internet might be the Wild West that it was one whole month ago! Oh the humanity, we can't possibly have that!

Wait, what was so bad about the Internet one month ago, again? I'm pretty sure Net Neutrality was still the de facto standard.

Two words: Wardrobe malfunction.

What problem? The FCC named zero problems. Only hypotheticals that could possibly happen sometime in the future.

Is that a good reason to let them expand their authority? What if they try to reinstate Broadcast Flag, or shut down sex services like they did with phones using Title II? The ends don't justify the means.

Then that's not Internet access. If I pay for Internet access, I expect Internet access.

Second, why does a hypothetical situation that's never happened justify giving the FCC, home of the nipple-protection-squad, more authority over our Internet?

Netflix's traffic isn't being routed any differently than any other company's traffic. Therefore, there can be no Net Neutrality violation.

Nope, the FCC specifically declined to intervene in peering agreements like Netflix-Cogent-Comcast:

As discussed, Internet traffic exchange agreements have historically been and will continue to be commercially negotiated. We do not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to subject arrangements for Internet traffic exchange (which are subsumed within broadband Internet access service) to the rules we adopt today.

You were saying?

Last time I checked, the Internet was an Information Service. That designation was created by Congress for some reason... You can't have it both ways.

I'm not even going to start on the fact that you think sending data is somehow not "information service."

I wouldn't single out Comcast in this manner, they're not uniquely a monopoly any more than other ISPs (and they're not, most people have multiple options for Internet access, virtually everyone if you include wireless options).

Netflix represents the majority of Internet traffic. Not just the biggest, but the majority. Mathematically, making a "swap" peering agreement while carrying Netflix traffic is going to be impossible because the exchange will be asymmetrical.

Every content provider who wants a fat uplink pipe needs to pay for it, and Netflix is no exception.

This is called fraud. It was always illegal.

Always been illegal. Not the FCC's jurisdiction, anyways.

[Citation Needed]
I've read the thing cover to cover.

There's no law saying you have to "represent the interests" of "their own constituency". How would you even prosecute that? If we have an objective way of determining everyone's best interest, we wouldn't need lawmakers.

Second, the House of Representatives is citizen-elected, the FCC is an unelected bureaucracy. I'm not so naive to think Congress is acting in my best interest, but the fact that they're opposing the unelected bureaucracy should raise some red flags. Specifically, they're probably unhappy that the FCC, all by itself, asserted its authority over the Internet, which they have no statutory authority over.

That is, if the FCC gets away with this, Congress becomes irrelevant, and my vote becomes even more meaningless than it was before.

No one is arguing how to route packets. We're arguing if there should be a Packet Police.

That is, we're arguing if it should be dictated by the same agency that fines you for saying "fuck" on broadcast television, or trying to record it.