Re: Utility vs Service
First, the Title I vs. Title II argument is a bit like wanting to tax horses and oxen for being employed to do work. If the argument is "they are beasts of burden, therefore we cannot tax them because the tax code does not support taxing animals"; the solution surely must not be to declare that horses are people. Sure, it may seem expedient, and by doing so at a stroke you enable all sorts of regulations you thought would be useful; but it carries with it a host of implications that should never ever apply in the first place.
The correct response, should there were one, is to demand from Congress a change in the law to account for cultural and technological changes which may have given owners of beasts of burden an unwarranted or undeserved benefit or advantage.
Likewise, changing the classification of ISP's to "Common Carrier" (a definition mostly made and applicable to a kind of technology available at some historical point in time) for the sake of being able to regulate them, is problematic and even nonsensical at some levels. As Mr. Orlowski has suggested in the past, the correct response is not to call your Web Browser a "telephone," or your Internet service a "broadcast TV signal," but to demand from Congress changes in law to support and regulate this brave new technological world upon us.
So that's the problem with the Title definition. Now, on to the analogy you offered.
Sure, the government should not care whether your lorry carries bricks or lumber; but it does care whether it carries people or things, whether it is small or large, and whether it weighs one or 40 tonnes. The point is that there are indeed classifications for vehicles by class and use, and there are distinct regulations for each. Some roads may not even permit a lorry to drive through -- and this is all by design.
So it is, in a fashion, with Internet service: although the government or the carrier, or the pipe should not care about the content of the message that the bits carry; they all should care about the class of message contained in those bits. Just like lorries, a movie delivery stream requires more bandwidth, higher quality of service, and faster transmission speeds than, say, a slow poke e-mail or Tweet. In turn, a video conference service requires even more resource and expediency in order to be truly useful.
These are resources incurred by the transport, the pipes, and the roads -- and those responsible of managing them. Who pays for that is the BIG QUESTION that everybody is trying to phrase to their own advantage. We all agree that it needs to be regulated, but again, just calling it a telephone or a CableTV broadcast for the sake of giving it _some_ regulation is shortsighted, impractical, and inadequate.
Those fighting for "net neutrality" want to paint everything in black-and-white terms: you are either for or against it; you either want to "save the Internet" or "kill it in a fire." This is disingenuous and misses the nature of the problem. It also masks the motivations of those pushing such an agenda: to avoid REAL regulation of the industry and to have someone else pay for the resources required by the nature of their services. The parties at BOTH sides of the issue (i.e., the pipe owners and the application service providers) are guilty of this, and we should all know better.