I'm skeptical of politicians...which is exactly why I support the concept of net neutrality but I could never support letting the US Government enforce it.
Large, entrenched corporations only support "free markets" insofar as it makes convenient political cover for "let us do what we want".
In the same way, the government has exactly zero economic interest in a correctly regulated network. Over time, laws have a way of favoring those who are connected over those who are not... Goldman Sachs springs to mind as an example of just such behavior.
People are wholey very good creatures. But there are times when a person can become evil and that is what the government is for...
In practice, it seems government has an interest in threatening regulation in order to extract concessions (campaign contributions) from regulated groups. There is little connection between the well-being of society and the incentives facing politicians.
I support the concept of a neutral network and a fair playing ground on the internet for all. I also think the government and the FCC isn't an institution that can provide it. How is that inconsistent? What evidence is there that the US Government can magically regulate this very chaotic environment?
They regulate the radio waves. There's money to be made there but it's a total disaster and a near monopoly to boot.
They regulate the wireless spectrum...and the US has, hands down, the worst cellular network of any first world country. (I'll admit that this isn't all the US' fault, but they contribute to the problem)
What makes you think turning over the reigns of network priority will be any different?