You end with FUD. Your credibility is at risk.
To highlight what I see as an impedance mismatch between Silicon Valley and Washington, take YC's comment to the FCC. There is a line in there "we should treat the telcos like the utilities they are" or something to that effect. That resounds here on HN, but made me cringe. The failures of utility regulation are a source of embarrassment to both sides of the aisle. Whether we're talking about rolling brownouts or ancient sewer systems dumping waste into rivers, nobody is really happy with how utilities are regulated in the U.S. So why evoke that association? You're guaranteed to alienate all but the hardcore "consumer protection" contingent of liberals, which are a dying breed.
As for the second part, Title II reclassification is controversial enough that even the EFF didn't support it until very recently, and even then only under the assumption that the FCC would practice forebearance[0].
Finally, while I very strongly disagree with many of the things rayiner has posted on this issue in the past (including the interpretation of some of the evidence he cites), it's clear that he has done his research and knows what he's talking about. As far as semi-anonymous/psuedonymous online forum discussions go, that's a reasonable enough amount of credibility for me.
[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/forbearance-what-it-wh...
Well, lots of conservatives (including 2/5 of the FCC) are entirely opposed to any regulation toward neutrality, whether under Title I or Title II or any other basis (and, in fact, many support Congress acting to eliminate any potential basis under which the FCC might adopt pro-neutrality regulations), so, sure, the proposed conservative opposition is not controversial at all (OTOH, its not much a basis for opposing any particular approach if you support the goal of neutrality regulation, since there is strong conservative opposition to the idea of pro-neutrality regulation, independent of the specific authority or mechanism.)