It's obvious they are just making shit up and referenced something unrelated (DSL deregulation) to make it seem legitimate. The person who wrote it probably knew it was a stretch. I don't see how this article is that interesting or will generate much interesting conversations here on HN.

This is politics baseless future-promises 101 stuff, just at a new completely not-giving-a-shit level. Which is only mildly interesting.

The question of whether the deregulation will do anything at all is still open to be seen. I've long said that tiered ISP pricing will never be a thing (ie, Comcast offering a "movies and social network package" vs a normal broadband monthly deal or mobile operators doing the same), regardless of lack of FCC protection, because it just doesn't make any sense as a business model or service, not to mention it would face a big industry backlash - an industry the whole arrangement relies on. But I got downvoted plenty before on HN early on by people who think we need it written down into law and enforced by FCC, regardless of its practicality, which I guess is fair.

But I still see very little (or almost zero) industry movement towards any of those scenarios people were claiming was going to happen a year or two ago during all the hysteria over the move to "deregulate" the FCC.

There was always far more in the way of those anti-net neutrality worst-case scenarios becoming reality than the FCC, IMO. The proposed scenarios only vaguely make sense in the developing world, not in the US, in places where you could bottom out pricing for access to networks, but it's already so cheap and established I don't see how any company could survive legitimately offering artificially limited internet access (beyond government protected oligopolies like we have here in Canada all agreeing to do it at the same time, which is again a huge stretch and nothing to do with the FCC).