lets say i accept your reason for the FCC getting into the internet. what happens whenever government gets involved in any free market thing? does government ever limit it's involvement, or does it continually expand regulation and control?
go back and look at McGovern and the people who supported him. look at policy. very little difference in stated intent, and where there is a difference, the mcgovernites were more conservative. might explain why GM was such an obama supporter? additionally, if you look at congress as a whole, even the liberal wing was far more conservative than most of the left of congress are now.
look at the policy issues that are embraced on those US socialist and US communist pages. how many have been implemented in full or in part, and how many have been brought up in congress? do you consider that to be a coincidence? why has this whitehouse had so much personal interaction with the unions and union bosses?
transparent government? surely you jest? you won't have to worry about companies regulating who can say what...and where has that happened? you will have to worry about the government saying who can say what. the same people who are saying that certain kinds of speech should be regulated as hate speech, or that every site should be required to air all sides of an argument.
i choose the market to control business, because as you say, profit motivates and if they piss people off they lose profit. does government have any motivator? no....other than control. do they care if they piss people off? no...and you can't vote the FCC out. it's not accountable to anyone.
i don't think that they will be able to jump right to limiting speech, but i predict that they will float the idea of something like requiring licenses for all sites soon. it will not end with the phantom "neutrality".