[@Scott Silverado]

You do realize, regardless of net neutrality or not, so before and now, that providers and websites were legally entitled to retain their "editorial rights" against your usage, correct? In neither case has that changed. The reason providers do not do this, at least not normally, is because they would a great amount of customers, thus consumer confidence, and market viability. There is a reason that censorship you are actually seeing, such as infamously with Google, Facebook, Twitter and their ilk, is because they legally can do it; morally they shouldn't be, but laws do not really dabble in morality as the internet goes.

For the arguments about having only one provider, this goes back to the revocation of Title II protection and transfer of primary agency to the Federal Trade Commission. It is a motion toward consumer protection, meaning if you start suffering abuse and mistreatment by a provider who is the only provider, one who is not engaging in fair play, you can - assuming you can prove it, which is the difficult component - press for a civil suit, in addition to those backed by the Federal Trade Commission. Another added benefit of this change is that the Federal Trade Commission has a unique power they intend to use and have openly spoken about; their antimonopoly powers. A provider is too big and too controlling, abusing customers who have no choice? Not for long.

Going into the distant future, the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission have admitted their intent is to begin breaking down the major internet superpowers, both sites and providers. What this means or how they intend to do it they have not yet discussed in public to my awareness.

The important thing to remember in all of this is the following:
[list][*] The "net neutrality" rules we all know went back to pre-2015 standards.
[*] The Federal Trade Commission, no longer the Federal Communications Commission, is the new go-to.
[*] The Title II classification of the internet has been removed.
[/list]