> fining people for indecency

On broadcast airways. The logic was that owners of broadcast receivers should be able to prevent indecent/obscene material from entering their home if they so wished. But due to the nature of broadcast media it was often impossible to know if, while flipping through channels, you might end up on something you did not wish to see. These were not televisions you could type a channel number in to; these were not digital radios that enabled the removal of channels you did not want. It sucks, but has absolutely no bearing on the internet (please to be reading through the telecommunications act. As legalize goes, it's not that bad).

> requiring auto-blocking 'v-chips' in TVs

Auto-blocking? Please expound. From my understanding, v-chips give the owner of the television the ability to censor the television broadcasts entering their home. The FCC, in this case, wasn't censoring - it was giving the option to television owners to censor. The best outcome would have been the requirement for televisions to have the v-chip installed, and removing the indecency fine authority. It's too bad it didn't work out that way. Keep in mind that cable television is also regulated under the TCA - see U.S.C. 47 ch 5 subchapter V-A

> enforce encryption bans

How? Without, you know, violating a plethora of privacy laws.

> national domain blacklists

How? The FBI can already seize domains, anyhow. Title II does not give the FCC the authority to operate a domain registrar.

> mandatory packet inspection/retention

Not really. The law (have you read the TCA?) requires that communications _not_ be inspected - by the FCC _or_ the telecoms.

> Why build up the idea of FCC as the Internet's keeper

Because the market is doing a shit job of it. Once upon a time, DSL was classified under Title II. Speeds increased over time. In 2005, it was reclassified. And speeds have been stagnant ever since, even though there is DSL technology that can provide over 200Mbps.

> But with utility-style regulation, agency staff regularly review and approve – or fine! – business activity.

Like when they fined that hotel for jamming wifi networks? That kind of fine? Or when they fined long distance phone companies for billing customers for services without their authorization? Or when they fined AT&T for operating fixed point-to-point microwave stations without authorization or license? Or when they fined Viacom and ESPN for misuse of Emergency Alert System warning tones? Or fined a company in Alabama for pre-recorded sales calls? Or fined Worldwide Industrial Enterprises for faxing 17 unsolicited advertisements? Or fined TerraCom and YourTel for failure to protect their customer's information? Or when they fined T-Mobile for hearing aid compatibility violations? Or cited RGS Group for illegally selling Wifi and cell phone jammers?

Which of these was nefarious?

All of them could have been challenged in court.

Even the rules they adopt can be challenged in court. See, for example: Verizon V. FCC.

> Regulators apply a larger body of vaguer rules, that they can change themselves

They can change them, yes. That's what the FCC is doing now. However, the FCC -- like all independent regulatory bodies - has procedures for changing the rules. And those procedures include a period of public comment. They don't change them in secret and on whim. Do some research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice_of_proposed_rulemaking

> and where usual presumptions-of-innocence or evidential[sic] standards don't apply.

Presumptions of innocence are not a part of civil law, either - only criminal law. When the FCC decides to fine someone, they issue a Notice of Apparent Liability and Order. The entity receiving this order is given 30 days to either pay the proposed fine or respond in writing. One of the ways they can respond is by filing a lawsuit/injunction against the FCC.

> the need to keep regulators happy nudges companies into "voluntary" compliance with political agendas, like default filtering for a "safer internet", or casual "information sharing" with law-enforcement for "cyber-security".

It's easier to do that with a senator or representative that needs to run for re-election, isn't it... and laws that don't have a mandatory period of public comment before being signed are a lot easier to craft secretly.

> default filtering

Given that default filtering of the internet, if broadband providers were regulated under Title II, would be illegal...

> casual "information sharing" with law-enforcement [...]

This already happens. If anything, Title II would _reduce_ said casual information sharing, because it codifies how said sharing should happen. See: U.S.C. 47 S. 229 (b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/229