could always compete with each other in all markets. There can be very uneven access, especially in rural markets. It already is very heavily regulated.

Eventually, this could dovetail into our fake news/echo chamber problems too - an ISP with an agenda can funnel information it chooses. What would prevent Comcast from providing easy access to everything NBC, including MSNBC, but preventing or hampering access to all things FOX (on TV and the web), if one day Comcast is controlled by a left wing Murdoch?

These are not simply theoretical problems. Seattle shows one example of how this could look in practice.

The goal is maximize consumer choice, or so one would think, in a marketplace that is already part "utility" by its nature. Decreasing net neutrality in a world of increasing vertical integration between content creators and ISPs is pretty clearly in conflict with that goal, and not just in theory IMO.

I would favor creating an environment where I choose the content I want to watch, read, or listen to, regardless of whose "pipes" I am leasing to gain access. Technology changes at such a rapid clip, which should be expected to only accelerate going forward, that the prudent course IMO is to create a framework that maximizes odds that content access remains in the hands of the consumer.