Thanks for posting that video, I watched the entire thing just now and I enjoyed it. There are a couple of points I'd like to argue against though.
1) Ron Paul expresses fears that increased government regulation of the net will favor the big companies and decrease competition.
The big thing I think we have to keep in mind is thst the current FCC is in bed with big ISPs, just like he feared. Ajit Pai went to the FCC from Verizon, one of the big players the FCC was made to regulate. It's no secret he's sympathetic to them, he's very much been public about that. However, in this case, decreased regulation would benefit monopolies the most. If we lived in a perfectly competitive system, we wouldn't even need net neutrality because we'd just switch to our ISP's competitor if they started to take advantage of us. The reason net neutrality is relevant is because we already have monopolies in the market. The cellular data market is dominated by less than 10 companies, and the broadband market basically has just two players- Time Warner and Comcast. To expand on that last point, you probsbly only have one or the other in your area. Thsts because they've basically agreed not to compete with each other. It's not a possibility that monoplities might pop up, its reality - they're already here. Net neutrality just limits what they can do while they control the markets.
With that in mind, the current FCC's goal is to just let them do whatever they want. Ajit Pai has said publicly thst he considers an area's ISP market sufficiently competitive if there's one broadband ISP around. That's not competition, that's the textbook definition of a monopoly. Repealing net neutrality is just a step towards the current FCC's goal of letting monopolies roam free.
2) Ron Paul argues that the cost of regulation might be passed on to the consumer, stifling access to technology, or that net neutrality would decrease incentive to innovate/compete.
There are public recordings of ISP companies telling their shareholders (to whom they're legally accountable) that they wouldn't decrease investment or face significant costs over net neutrality. I'd go over the point myself, but they did it for me.
3) He's afraid of increasing government control over content.
That's the exact opposite of what's happening here. In this day and age, government isn't the only one that regulate content. Without net neutrality, the ones who regulate what content gets to you are the ISPs, and they could, for example, remove your access to anti-Comcast or anti-Verizon sites. In case you haven't noticed, that's analogous to the example Ron Paul uses where the government stifles criticism of the patriot Act. Net neutrality isn't an example of the government doing that, it's a case where the government is stopping ISPs from doing that.
TLDR of 3, the government isn't regulating content. It's stopping other people from doing that.
4) He's afraid of draconian laws being used in the modern age,
This is the trickiest one, and I'd argue it's a very valid concern. Old laws can cause new harm, without a doubt. It's just that in this case, which is a very special case due to the monopolistic characteristics of the ISP market, we need some regulation to help limit what a monopoly can do. If we draft new legislation, we get exactly the case that he described, where the people that write laws are in bed with the ones those laws are trying to regulate. With that in mind, we need some legal footing, and that's why we're using old and outdated laws. It's a stupid way to do it, but I can't think of a better way.
In all honestly, Ron Paul is applying sound principles in his arguments, but he's not taking into account the current state of affairs in the ISP market. It doesn't help either that, since this was written, the FCC has gotten a new leader that is the poster boy of monopolistic government practices.