What can we learn from Boston's venerable Jamaicaway, a three lane road with two in each direction?
The FCC's concern has been directed by the moneyed interests of big media (e.g. Netflix, Google) and big networking (the ISPs and also Google). Both sides have legitimate business concerns, so this is understandable and not intrinsically evil. It is certainly true that connections with the media companies are responsible for the large share of internet bandwidth. But this completely ignores the rest of internet traffic, about which the FCC and Congress and certainly the News Media are nearly unaware. (Because that isn't where the money is.)
The original capability of the Internet was to provide (reliable?) connections between arbitrary machines. The original concerns with decentralization and automatic self-reconfiguration (nuclear war) are perhaps not so much the concern any more, but it is still the case that the Internet must support arbitrary connections between arbitrary devices. I use various SSL/VPN/RDP to work from my laptop at home to development machines at my employer's office. The bandwidth isn't trivial, but small compared to receiving video or even mp3. Netflix and Google and the FCC and Congress and the Media aren't much concerned about that service, but I sure am as should be anyone concerned about the health of the economy. And we are moving into the so-called Internet of Things, so Google's subsidiaries can monitor the setting of my thermostat and the contents of my refrigerator for me. Where does this traffic fit into Net Gnutrality? Who advocates for it? Next year might be too late.
Of course, managing any limited resource requires policies, and usually some kind of cost pricing. (I'm ignoring here the technically-attractive argument that net bandwidth should be implementationally cheap enough as to not need measurement. The problem with unmeasured resouces is that applications soon find ways to overuse those resources.) Assigning the "costs" of network traffic are more complex than is obvious. My connection to my office (15 hops, 5 miles as a carrier pigeon would navigate it, but about 60 miles as the backbone sites route it) first traverses my local ISP (the company that bought the name of the company that in my childhood was the de facto national phone system), then traverses a couple hops through another backbone provider, then a couple more hops through the backbone/local provider my employer uses. Most of the time reliability and latency are admirable -- Emacs works just like a local program. But every tens of minutes latency suddenly becomes about 1.5 seconds, I believe at one of the interfaces between these big three providers.
All three of these big network providers bear some cost from my traffic. (My emacs load is small compared to Netflix, but the issues of throughput and latency are similar.) The providers at each end have some direct cost-recovery mechanism (monthly fees) but the one in the middle does not. There are complex contractual reimbursement protocols between backbone providers. They all deserve to be compensated for the costs. I'd like to understand these contracts better (except I have other things to do with my life) but I'd insist the FCC _show_ that they understand them.
BTW, the nature of some of these compensation mechanisms is that they are (and should be trans-national), not directly subject to Congressional or Administrative (FCC) regulation.
My conclusion would be that the forces on connectivity providers are similar to the cost structure of other public utilities, the same as the nice people who provide you electricity, water, sewerage, and (in the past) telephone connection, and that there should be a wall between these utilities and content providers. That would be the sane solution from the public policy perspective. Whoops, I used the concepts "sane" and "public policy" in the same sentence. Don't expect it to work out that way, as money and Congress are involved.