Well, you have to go back far enough timeline, though. It can seem like there is some compartmentalization of application logic, but the application of other types of regulation has in part led us to where we are freaking out about the repeal of regulation and/or reclassification if you want to call it that.
Remember that the “Light Touch” approach under Wheeler’s FCC, where ISPs were title one? At the risk of oversimplifying, what happened was the ISPs challenged Wheeler, and Wheeler lost, because (under the law) the ISPs were right that title 1 didn’t really apply. Fortunately title 2 does; and the wording of the specific ruling where the FCC “lost” makes clear that the FCC can do exactly what it is doing, by law, and that is the best approach to accomplish what the FCC wanted to do when it established rules under title 2. The court literally said that.
Remember, too, that everyone (FCC and companies both) agreed that “all” of title 2 was onerous and overly broad, but legal scholars were quick to point out the FCC had the option of forebearance, a mechanism by which the FCC can simply write a memo to ISPs saying which parts of title 2 will (and will not) be enforced.
This makes legal sense because you don’t want the FCC making up laws, and attornies general/prosecutors/etc have discretion in what they pursue. Sounds good to me I don’t want the local crazy guy making up laws either.
I’ll come back to this in a sec, we’ve got to go even further back in time.
Should there be rules that all players agree to play by? Haha sure, in a general sense yes, obviously. Aristotle wrote some interesting stuff on this if you go far enough back 
Can you call that regulation? Yes, probably. Unfortunately ideals, and what happens once the self-interested show up, what we end up with is something less interesting than what Aristotle and other philosophers have written about.
So lets think about a world where we have multiple companies that provide internet and “other services” and they all compete for the consumers’ business. It is fun to imagine what life might be like in a world where when Comcast pulls shenanigans as they did a few years ago (under title I) when they inserted tcp close packets in bittorrent streams, or when they failed to upgrade peering links with Cogent, ruining any chance their customers had of downloading data from Cogent clients (e.g. netflix, but others were also affected). Welllll we don’t have to imagine – think back to dial up internet. There were loads of ISPs. The phone line was separate from the internet service, and there were loads of providers, not really a lot of regulation. Those ISPs like AOL did play games, like oversubscribing, busy signals, etc. Customers voted with their wallets.
(Actually, before ISPs, there were BBSes and that really primed the pump for ISPs because you could get loads of interesting stuff on ISPs, but no internet connection. And later there were newsgroups and shared message boards but… story for another time.)
In the era of dial-up and such there was very little regulation, at least compared to now.
I’m leaving a lot of detail out but there was a lot of teeth gnashing in the late 80s and early 90s. AOL, CompuServ, Prodigy offered data services and later internet services, but the cost model evolved over time so it was really interesting and that’s what I want to take
a look at. To make a long story short, AOL and others rose to power because they hosted content people wanted, during the dial-up days, and later died because they stopped hosting content anyone wanted. These companies played games with how they charged their customers, how content was acessed, etc and ultimately the consumers in market picked new providers and those mega providers lost out on the transition from “internal” data services to “global” data services like the internet.
This all happened largely absent any real regulation, at least regulation in the sense we’re talking about it now.
Dialup wasn’t fast enough to feed customer appetite for data. Telephone companies were selling more phone lines than ever. Cable companies wanted in on the action, even power companies. Existing copper, and all that.
CableTV was a more interesting situation. It was also pretty free of regulation in the beginning. Did you know you could just rebroadcast OTA signals back in the day? And that’s how cable companies did business absent any kind of interference or oversight from broadcasters? It was when they started running their own ads that things got a bit dicey. Again, oversimplification. Then regulation because they were too big and too few companies controlled too many eyeballs.
So because of the “natural” monopolies produced from the way we elected to do our ISPs (which, by the way, the 1996 telecommunications act is about this, in this context, to decouple high speed networks from services offered. ) No incumbent company could imagine literally everything would run over generic data services. Reading through this stuff my opinion is that these companies in 1996 seemed to think they would be the hulus and netflixes and major web destinations since they were all basically global multinationals and had all the keys to the kingdom as it was then, prettymuch. The 1996 telecommunications act was literally about separating the network from the services on it. Just like dial-up had been, but high speed.
The 1996 telecommunications act deregulated in some ways, and introduced new regulations in other. ATT and others fought tooth and nail against providing real (read: functional) CLEC/ILEC services, which was essentially letting go of their last mile network, while loads of data service companies merged. They figured out the only thing they really had of value was the captive audience. It’s always about the captive audience…
On paper, this would have been great. The 1996 telecommunications act truly would let customers have their cake and eat it too. Mergers were part of the plan becasue how could you compete? Global network and all that. In practice, the 96 telecommunications act has been a disaster. Consumers have been ripped off to the nth degree. Consolidated companies are “too big to fail” in their own insidious ways…
Netflix is content people want. The content is on a global network, and ISPs are just a way for people to get on to the global network to get the content they want. Not just netflix, lots of stuff. ISPs have forgotten their place in the ecosystem and customers are essentially hostage at this point.
If it were possible for consumers to choose another provider, other than Comcast, for internet service the market would take care of itself just as it did with AOL vs Unnamed Local ISP where AOL lost. Comcast is the AOL in that equation haha.
So while title II is probably now necessary, because of the dystopian heavily regulated context in which it exists, it is not necessary (well, 98.5% not necessary if you want to be pedantic) to the extent that we are seeing in an ideal world.
In other words, were the circumstances such that the consumer can vote with their wallet, like they could in the dial-up ISP days, little (if any) regulation would be necessary. And for the remaining 2.5% regulation we probably do need, it will no doubt be crappy in some way because people are generally self-interested and/or corrupt.
So it is easy to imagine the scenario with gaming that regulation they will get it wrong, and what finally does pass will be a dumpster fire of insanity that is ultimately terrible for the consumer, just like the 1996 telecommunications act…
On the surface it may look a bit inconsistent reasoning – lack of regulation for games, keep title 2 regulation for internet, but in reality we’re trying to avoid a “1996 telecommunications act” scenario for games, and software in general, no doubt.
Most people aren’t really dumb. They would vote with their wallet if they could. And for now indie studios can do some really great things with games and it is easy to imagine indie gamers suffering in some insidious way at the hands of poorly executed regulation…
Also after you play for a while you can just go and buy whatever skins you want for the Events (which technically you can do in Battlefront 2, but it takes forever and has gameplay advantages, whereas OW skins do not).