Generally speaking, regulations require a registration/approval process to facilitate enforcement. Participation in that industry then becomes encumbered by the requirement to go through that process, which is bureaucratic red tape that inhibits innovation.
Yes, but that doesn't apply in this case, since the regulations don't add to the approval process. The regulatory structure is there to provide legal support in case of major infractions by ISPs. Even monitoring is done by 3rd parties.
There is no established connection between this kind of regulatory structure and innovation or investment. Monitoring of major ISPs didn't show a significant pattern of increased or deceased investment. AT&T spent less. Verizon spent more. Some minor ISPs reduced investment and even petitioned to remove the rules. Others expanded service more under the rules than they had before.
I don't know enough about the particulars of this case to have an informed opinion, so you may be right. The reason I'm dubious is that what I've seen is regulations generally adding compliance overhead even for those not directly subject or for those already in compliance.
Moreover, every additional regulation generally increases the need for an official registration/approval process for would-be market entrants, which precludes a transition to the type of barrier-less industry that I think would be optimal for innovation.
That's the extent of my comment on this particular issue.
That is not my view on the likely relative importance of the deregulation benefits versus regulation benefits, though I can't provide any evidence to support my opinion.
I don't see how forbearance was a hindrance to innovation. Maybe you'd like to explain it to me.