It is important to note that ISPs were not inherently one or the other. It's not that they were ISs (information services) to start with - they were unclassified. The Act provides some definitions as to what an IS is and what a CC is but these definitions are ambiguous and did not (indeed do not) serve to clearly put these ISPs into one category or another. Due to this, under the Chevron doctrine*, the FCC can determine which category a service should fall into.
Regardless of any other arguments, the historical fact is that the FCC made the decision to classify ISPs as ISs rather than Common Carrier Services because they believed that that would be the best way to generate competition and provide a good level of service and choice for the most Americans possible.
That, clearly, has not eventuated.
Taking off my fact hat (and the preceding paragraphs are indeed fact), what has happened here is really no different to what happens with any form of regulation.
Regulation is used, essentially, as a way to ensure that unrestrained capitalism does not work against the interests of the people - or at least not unduly so. The battleground is around what is in the best interests of the people and whether regulation will work for that or against that.
Those on the right believe - in general - in less regulation. They believe that 'market forces' will act to make everything the best it can be - choice, competition, quality, affordability - whatever the optimal solution is, 'market forces' will find it.
Those to their left believe - in general - in more regulation. It is a misrepresentation, of course, to say that they believe in regulation for its own sake, though that could be said of some specific exponents. They are wrong, but I digress.
The simple fact is that neither option can be exclusively relied on to produce a satisfactory result across all industries and markets and the best option is to utilise both in differing mixes depending on the specific circumstances and the goals to be achieved.
To do that, you must first identify exactly what the goal is. The FCC already did that and the mix of market forces to regulation they chose has not achieved that goal. The question that must be asked is it that goal still the one being aimed for? And, if so, given that the current mix has not worked, what mix will work?
In short, relying on market forces and pure capitalism has just not provided the end result that was planned and if we still want that end result, unregulated market forces alone will not achieve that in the future any more than that method has in the past.
* - Essentially, that where a statute is ambiguous, interpretation of the statue should fall to the relevant federal body. This is one of the reasons why many want the Act amended - one way or another - to settle the argument.