I am not now, and have never been, a fan of Comcast's.
From that perspective, I'm puzzled by this article.
The document posted is not, as the link to it states, "an order" -- i.e., a command issued by a court with jurisdiction to compel compliance by the person against whom the order is issued.
The document is a "cease and desist letter," sent by a private entity to "Dear Sir or Madam," stating its client's contention under well-known principles of trademark infringement and threatening to seek redress from a court if the recipient does not comply with the demand set forth in the letter.
The grounds cited by the letter in support of its demand are commonplace terms from the law of intellectual property. I don't doubt that Comcast's intention is to silence criticism -- but there is nothing in the law as it stands or is proposed that permits them to do so.
Nor is there any "need [for] Title II net neutrality protections that ban blocking, throttling, and censorship" in order for criticism to continue.
Whether or not the FCC regulation "is enacted" it is not true that "there would be nothing preventing Comcast from simply blocking sites like Comcastroturf.com that are critical of their corporate policies."
The law of intellectual property, with no relevance to "criticism," enables the demand made by Comcast
And the law of intellectual property will permit criticism of Comcast to go forward.
All that is required is for the entity of which Comcast complains to change its name to one that is not "confusingly similar to the [Comcast trademark] because it sounds the same, looks the same, and is spelled similarly to Comcast."
The entity should spend no time, money, or emotional energy contesting the cease and desist letter's demand. It should change its name and continue, with renewed energy,
The candidates from which a new name could be effectively chosen are infinite in number.