Not every ISP is comcast.
No, they are not. Do you think it's any different with Verizon, CenturyLink, or any other regional or national ISP? Every one of them has received the tax breaks that started with the
Telecom Act of 1996, and instead of using that additional money to build infrastructure as mandated in the law, have generally used it to line the pockets of they executives with cash.
I'm not really convinced that the internet will end without net neutrality. It could potentially make a few things inconvenient, but I'm not convinced that we need to get out our pitchforks and torches over it.
This is the beginning of turning the internet into Cable TV 2.0. In a few years you will be buying an internet plan based on whether you get high speed access to Netflix, Hulu, Facebook, or whatever hot new web service shows up. You want to use "old school" internet tools that run on ports other than 80, 443, 25, 465/587? That'll be extra, or maybe you'll have to get the "Business" package.
it only ever takes actions towards ending it
I'm no Obama fan, nor did I vote for him, but for the first few years of his presidency, he seemed to be trying to get the FCC to enforce net neutrality. This was met with resistance from every major national ISP. Some examples include Verizon arguing that "it had a first amendment right to block content on its network." and "like a newspaper, it provides you with news but has a right to cover whatever it wants and say whatever it wants." Another would be Comcast suing the FCC to overturn the FCC order censuring Comcast from interfering with subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software
The part of the 1996 Telecom Act that excludes ISPs from being covered under common carrier rules would seem to support this. I think amending the law to remove this restriction would then give the FCC more legal ability to actually implement some form of net neutrality, and keep us from having to "get out our pitchforks and torches over it."