I'm sympathetic to what you're saying on net neutrality, but wasn't that the way it was, and wasn't the gov't trying to change that via legislation and/or regulation? I may be wrong on that.
"Intentions were solid." I tend to agree, but will never use that as the proper test for whether something could get scrapped or maintained. What matters is what actually works, and not whether the person implementing the regulation had good intentions. For example, I believe that ACA had good intentions, at least by some, but while more people may now be insured, others are paying way more in premiums, and even those who are now insured have such a high deductible that are reticent to go t the doc, as the first $5,000 is coming out of their pocket. that's a killer if you're family income is only 40,,000-50,000/year.
Regarding income inequality. Honestly, I still don't understand why that matters, except to reduce envy in people who aren't happy that someone else has more than them. What should matter is whether those on the "bottom" rung of the economic latter have "enough" to get by. If they have enough (whatever that is), who cares if the rich guy has $10 more than the poor guy or a million more than the poor guy.
For example, let's say it takes $50,000 for a family of four to have "enough" and the poor presently make $30,000/year, and the rich make $100,000/year. If we could magically triple everyone's income so that poor family now makes $90,000/year and rich family makes $270,000/year, is this better or worse? I think it's better, as the rich now have "enough". However, with respect to income inequality, things are worse, because the gap used to be $70,000, and now it's $210,000. Seems like income inequality is more about fueling class resentment rather than actually giving a shit about the poor.