...but going after service providers may be a bit shortsighted.
Access providers and service providers were once one and the same. Telephony, Video, and other services were used as justification to build out the access network. Internet running over coax or twisted pair are innovations that came about after a substantial investment was made. Find a major US access provider that did not originate as a service provider. Over the 2000's, service providers that didn't control access networks came to compete the services offered by those access providers. With the migration of nearly every kind of service to IP, the same access/service providers find themselves with the burden of having their access networks pseudo-nationalized by proponents of net neutrality, while at the same time having fierce competition to their service offerings by unregulated over the top players. The same companies are required to meet regulatory requirements for providing 911, CALEA, and increasing rates from content providers, while their unregulated over-the-top competition merely faces the technical challenge of optimizing the service delivery path and funding lobbyists to support continued regulation of access.
Although many feel strongly that internet access is a utility, and should be regulated as something people should have a right to have, we should understand that the costs to bring this access to homes is very high. Access to bandwidth 4-8 times that of a T1 at about 1/10th the cost is a bargain, and the only way the math works is through oversubscription and the sale of bundled services.
With Internet access/service providers on the defensive on all fronts - access, telephony service, video service, and internet value-adds (email, etc) - it should be no surprise that these companies see other revenue streams, either in adjacent markets, content provider ownership, or new models (pay-per-byte).
The bizarre irony of all of it is that darlings of the tech world, Google, Apple, and Adobe, are working very hard to lock consumers into their own channels. Google, using an ad-supported model, churns out services at a feverish pace, but only to wrap you into the services and intermediate all other service providers and their customers. Apple, enforcing strict control over their environments in an attempt to channel consumers into a high-margin Apple world. Adobe, working to be the content deliverer for "any screen" by providing the "one platform" with Flash and Air. Each works to lock users and developers into their sticky feature sets, happy that Joe User's hard feelings are directed at the service provider. They take some heat, but is it commensurate to the potential threat to consumer choice?
Whatever the outcomes are for access/service providers, there will be a platform and privacy fight for you waiting when the dust clears.