The very last thing we need is for the government to put more regulation on the Internet. The only thing that's kept their heavy hands from destroying things so far, is that they're also incompetent with technical issues.
I'm fine with reasonable regulation. When you have an oligopoly controlling the infrastructure, having regulations that say they can't sell preferential access to that infrastructure to other oligopolies is a good thing. The key metric of what's good for the consumer is competition, not regulation. Regulation that stifles competition is bad. Regulation that protects it is good. Regulation itself is simply a tool, and it's moral worth lies in how it's used.
Not necessarily. There's no point in using regulation to preserve competition between buggy whip manufacturers. Creative destruction puts an end to many industries. And in some cases, its death throes can easily look like a market failure rather than market success.
In the end, who decides if it's a buggy whip industry? And who decides if a corporation is an oligopoly? Remember, it's likely that in any mature, regulated industry, the regulators are probably industry insiders themselves (see "Regulatory Capture", https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Regulatory_ca... ).
Your original post struck a very anti-net neutrality tone. My point was that government regulation in that area, as well as others, can protect both consumers and innovation. If we let any company merge with any other, we would soon have monopolies that stifle competition and gouge consumers.
Not all regulation is bad, just like not all effects of slavish adherence to free market ideals are good. The free market is good in aggregate, but there are many cases where government intervention is beneficial.
This is why the governments of the world need to implement do not track laws.