The proposal on the table is fundamentally anticompetitive, inasmuch as its effect will be to limit consumers' access to service and content.  As a practical matter it will also limit or prevent (due to cost) small and innovative businesses from using it effectively for a fair position in the free market place.

 I believe that Net neutrality policy was officialized much earlier, i.e. became precedent under US legal system.  Over 10 years ago, a phone company blocked the use of Vonage which, via the Internet, had enabled Vontage customers to bypass their phone company's voice network.  In this case customers were blocked from using an innovative Internet product to make phone calls over a phone company's Internet service offering -- clearly a case of anticompetitive behavior.  When customers complained, a *Republican led FCC* fined the company and directed the company to stop blocking the Vonage application.  

The corporate behavior illustrated by the Vonage case has continued.  In the past, this has been concealed and only discovered by independent third parties investigating the cause of slow performance for various uses of the Internet.  Other well known examples include AT&T's attempt to prevent the use of Skype, another Internet voice application.  If the FCC moves forward to resend the earlier FCC regulation, a company such as Comcast that owns both Internet service companies and many content producers,  (including NBC, NBC Universal Studios, Dream Works), will have approval to restrict or block their competitors, forcing their customers to use only Comcast approved content.  Parenthetically, I note that Comcast has ~27% of the market.  
 
I hope it is obvious that today under net neutrality, carriers are free to raise prices to cover capital requirements as they please.  This is not about raising money to update their networks, it is about stifling competition among content providers for enhanced competitive advantage.  And, of course, there is no guarantee that they will really use the additional revenue for capital investment.

As I understand it the proposed FCC modification requires the carriers to be transparent as to their blocking and/or throttling policy.  Ignoring the fact that such requirements are almost never respected or enforced, the modification allows carriers to go forward with whatever blocking and/or throttling policy they deem profitable. 

Finally, the argument that Internet users have access to alternative Internet service providers, and therefore alternative content doesn't hold water.  Many consumers have access to a limited number of ISPs, in some cases to only a single ISP.

In sum, I urge the FCC to leave current rules in place in support of free market principles which enables consumers to directly choose their own content.