Exactly as [@Dark Wind] went on with, that "net neutrality" is a carefully packaged lie that was fed to the public with the intent of having them buy into something they knew nothing about. A few short, important details about are that the reason the Federal Communications Commission had to reclassify it as the infamous Title II was because of activist judges more or less saying that somehow they did not have an argument in court despite being the ones to write operational guidelines on it and be one of several avenues to start up a lawsuit for violations. In essence, the only reason it truly needed to be reclassified is because users [i]lost[/i] protection, rather than gained any, under the ideal of "net neutrality".

The new system more or less enforces a standard on the providers that they have no real recourse for. If they conspire against consumers, say they all agree to start charging for services, they can be taken down by the Federal Trade Commission [i]and[/i] broken up as a monopoly - which is already something on the table that is on the book to be done; breaking the giants like Google, Facebook, Comcast, and their fellow ilk. If a provider begins charging for varied services, as is their right, users can migrate to other providers and effectively weed out the competition who made such a foolish motion as others noted here.

Continued, I learned something novel today that more or less allowed the federal government, under the old "net neutrality" rules, to silence [i]anyone[/i] who the Department of State determined to be a propaganda outlet. Apparently it was hidden away in the budget for 2017 and oddly its provision only lasts for [i]eight years[/i]. Why is this important? Well, because with no trial or judgment, the government could at whim take away your internet usage directly through your provider because of Title II if they so much as thought you were an opponent. So much for freedom of speech there, am I wrong? Another unsettling fact was that the way they pursued "net neutrality" was through a set of obsolete rules and obscure rules. Why all the fuss when they could have just done so with a new provision? A bit odd.

The downside to this is that while we have gone back to pre-2015 rules, people are still not going to properly know how to pursue or even uncover unlawful actions by providers and it will always take quite some time to prosecute them.