There’s two sides: the web server and the web client (the user’s browser).
Net id is more about knowing who the users are.
Net neutrality deals heavily with the server side, i.e., are you as a person or your business allowed to control the content on your website and only be subject to normal operation of the law, that is, fraud, various actual crimes like theft, prostitution, etc.
If website owners are legally forced to police their own websites and remove and report legitimate dissent, or legitimiate whistleblowing, then the “elites” have essentially complete control of the entire internet to use for their own totalitarian whims.
A website owner might not even have users; most small websites have few or no users; the content is purely that of the website owner.
Having a website presents the concept of a “right to publish”. The publishing is very cheap and to the entire world.
Most troubling, actually, is the idea of a website owner that offers software, whether for free or for a charge, whether program source code is included or not. This is because any software could be deemed “not good for the internet” and the website shut down by the FCC without even the benefit of a trial.
Ironically, the criminal activities of the financial elites, as well as their espionage operations, give them motivation to keep the internet as it is. This is why, IMHO, they are pursuing a very open-ended, ambiguous legal framework, so they can pick and choose later who to attack and who to leave alone, exactly as we now know has always been done using tax law and the IRS.
Re: two sides.
Since they’ll be doing the server side they’ll just make ‘open standards’ that require servers to know who they’re dealing with.