I don't know why everyone thinks government regulation is always bad, or do you miss the days of working in the factory being a leading cause of death, of children working their fingers literally off, you know, the little things that corporations didnt' care about, mainly the health of their workers.
Government usually doesn't manage to take the best option when looking for the solution, then implements it poorly, and ends up costing a fair amount too. Sometimes the benefit is great enough to outweigh all of this, but often it isn't.
Personally I'd prefer it if instead of using regulation to ba it'd instead ensure that the information was clearly displayed to allow people to make up their minds. For example if every internet service provider who planned to choose what sites you could visit was forced to have a big bold statement that they do this I wouldn't have thought many people would want to use them (thus ensuring that there's a clear incentive for some providers to allow a neutral net) while also allowing the few who want to only have a few prescribed sites to visit to be able to use that provider.
Given the failure of various governments to do something similar with DRM though (e.g. I don't know when I buy a game if I can only play it while being logged in 24/7, or can only install it 3 times, or can actually use it as I should be able to, without having to research it) I'd probably prefer regulation that banned restricting speeds based on the website viewed since they'd probably fail to do the alternative properly!