Utility vs Service
The author of this article is characterising this as a war to define who the bill is paid to, but that seems to be a little odd to me.
The fundamental issue I am having with understanding this is that I see the two sides as different. One is infrastructure, and the other is a service provider, that operates at a different level.
In theory, the infrastructure costs should be 'fixed' - in that all you are shovelling down the physical connection is bits and bytes, what they represent shouldn't mean anything at the infrastructure level - it's just transport.
The same way that a road is uncaring as to whether the lorry passing over it is filled with coal, or the equivalent mass of bottled water.
(Of course it might be more comparable to a toll road, where the more you use it, the more you pay, instead of just paying your road tax each year, in which case it would be pro-rata, not fixed)
It therefore shouldn't matter whether a user is watching youtube, or netflix, or just browsing the news, there shouldn't be an additional charge from the infrastructure for carrying those bits, just because of what they represent.
Or at least, that's my understanding of it. Exactly how that maps onto Title I or Title II I'm a little fuzzy on, as I understand it, neither are a great fit, but Title II is closer to that ideal?