No, the one an AT&T spokesperson told me directly is going well. But in either case, don't take my word for it, since it was woven into the agreement on page 141.

"Klein and Wright also note that “[t]he primary competitive concern with slotting arrangements is the claim that they
may be used by manufacturers to foreclose or otherwise disadvantage rivals, raising the costs of entry and
consequently increasing prices [ref. omitted]. It is now well established in both economics and antitrust law that the
possibility of this type of anticompetitive effect depends on whether a dominant manufacturer can control a
sufficient amount of distribution so that rivals are effectively prevented from reaching minimum efficient scale.” Id.
at 422. Thus, in the unlikely event that a dominant edge provider tried to buy up so much ISP capacity that a rival
edge provider could not achieve minimum efficient scale, this conduct could be challenged under the antitrust laws."

Or, if 141 is a bad number, 81 also works.

"In the unlikely event that ISPs engage in conduct that harms Internet openness, despite
the paucity of evidence of such incidents, we find that utility-style regulation is unnecessary to address
such conduct. Other legal regimes—particularly antitrust law and the FTC’s authority under Section 5 of
the FTC Act to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices—provide protection for consumers. These longestablished
and well-understood antitrust and consumer protection laws are well-suited to addressing any
openness concerns, because they apply to the whole of the Internet ecosystem, including edge providers,
thereby avoiding tilting the playing field against ISPs and causing economic distortions by regulating
only one side of business transactions on the Internet."




Or to combine the two, clause 141 on page 81 states

"Consumer Protection. The FTC has broad authority to protect consumers from “unfair or
deceptive acts or practices.”495 As the nation’s premier consumer protection agency, the FTC has
exercised its authority, which arises from Section 5 of the FTC Act, to protect consumers in all sectors of
the economy.496 The FTC has used its Section 5 authority to enjoin some of the practices at issue in this
proceeding, such as throttling.497 The FTC is prohibited under the FTC Act from regulating common
carriers.498 As a result, the Commission’s classification of broadband Internet access service as a
common carriage telecommunications service stripped the FTC of its authority over ISPs. Therefore, as
discussed in greater detail below,499 the return to Title I will increase the FTC’s effectiveness in protecting
consumers.500 Today’s reclassification of broadband Internet access service restores the FTC’s authority
to enforce any commitments made by ISPs regarding their network management practices that are
included in their advertising or terms and conditions, as the FTC did so successfully in FTC v.
TracFone.
501 The FTC’s unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority “prohibits companies from selling
consumers one product or service but providing them something different,” which makes voluntary
commitments enforceable.502 The FTC also requires the “disclos[ur]e [of] material information if not
disclosing it would mislead the consumer,” so if an ISP “failed to disclose blocking, throttling, or other
practices that would matter to a reasonable consumer, the FTC’s deception authority would apply.”503
Today’s reclassification also restores the FTC’s authority to take enforcement action against unfair acts or
practices. An unfair act or practice is one that creates substantial consumer harm, is not outweighed by
countervailing benefits to consumers, and that consumers could not reasonably have avoided.504 A
unilateral change in a material term of a contract can be an unfair practice.505 The FTC’s 2007 Report on
Broadband Industry Practices raises the possibility that an ISP that starts treating traffic from different
edge providers differently without notifying consumers and obtaining their consent may be engaging in a
practice that would be considered unfair under the FTC Act."






Plus, if that's not enough, they state that while they're not going to make net neutrality the law of the land (and it wasn't even with Title II in place), they do state that they're going to hold ISPs who have elected to implement net neutrality to their agreement as if it were law. Page 83 states

"Many of the largest ISPs have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal
content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers
without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.508 As discussed below, we believe that case-by-case,
ex post regulation better serves a dynamic industry like the Internet and reduces the risk of overregulation.509
We also reject assertions that the FTC has insufficient authority, because, as Verizon
argues, “if broadband service providers’ conduct falls outside [the FTC’s] grant of jurisdiction—that is,
if their actions cannot be described as anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive—then the conduct should not
be banned in the first place.”510 And the transparency rule that we announce today should allay any
concerns about the ambiguity of ISP commitments,511 by requiring ISPs to disclose if the ISPs block or
throttle legal content. Finally, we expect that any attempt by ISPs to undermine the openness of the
Internet would be resisted by consumers and edge providers.512 We also observe that all states have laws
proscribing deceptive trade practices."

It's a long document, but they really do encode massive new consumer protection that simply didn't exist under Title II.