Title II is shot through with rate-regulation stuff that I don't think anybody thinks is a good idea to apply to ISPs, but it's expected that the FCC will be using its power of forbearance extensively in this area.
The article is very gloom-and-doom about it, but I'm sympathetic to the view that what's really needed is specific authority for the FCC to regulate that doesn't carry all the POTS baggage from Title II. That outcome seems much less likely than reclassification and trying to "patch" the law with forbearance, though.
The rate regulation doesn't look that bad at first glance. It would require ISPs to publicly disclose their actual prices and peering agreements, both of which I think would be a wonderful improvement. It would authorize but does not appear to require the FCC to intervene in rate changes. It does not seem to unconditionally require pre-approval for rate changes, and it empowers the FCC to provisionally allow rate changes that are under dispute. The only scary bit is where the FCC is allowed to set minumum and maximum prices if they think ISP are or will be setting prices that in some way violate any part of the act; and that's only scary because I don't know everything that's in the act.
The article is very gloom-and-doom about it, but I'm sympathetic to the view that what's really needed is specific authority for the FCC to regulate that doesn't carry all the POTS baggage from Title II. That outcome seems much less likely than reclassification and trying to "patch" the law with forbearance, though.