Behind the push for net neutrality lies an understandable frustration that there isn’t more broadband competition. Unfortunately, the net neutrality movement has been captured by those pushing for the very opposite: giving up on competition and returning to the days of a tightly regulated monopoly provider. That’s how Ma Bell was governed, under Title II — the “morass” of public utility-style regulations the Clinton-era FCC declined to impose on the Internet, a decision neutrality hardliners now want to reverse.

But how would Title II affect competition? This question is all too often ignored in Washington, but it was front and center at a roundtable held Tuesday by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai at Texas A&M. Among the diverse panel of experts were two small Internet providers, who voiced support for net neutrality in principle but warned that heavy-handed Title II regulation could stop them from serving consumers — and competing with the incumbent cable and telco companies so despised by net neutrality activists.

Here are a few Twitter highlights from the event:

For more on Title II, check out our DontBreakThe.Net site and some of our recent work on broadband deployment. In particular, see our proposed compromise on the bitterly divisive issue of muni broadband: cities should build out their own networks only if private providers don’t enter the market once the city has cut red tape and built fiber-ready smart infrastructure like Dig Once conduits under streets.

Bottom line, if you want competition, you should defend the bipartisan consensus against regulating the Internet like the old monopoly phone network that has prevailed for 18 years.