Seems a brief history lesson is in order.
Back when these shenanigans started the cost was borne by schools and government groups. ISPs were businesses dedicated to internet services over telephone lines, not the megacorps. The megacorp phone companies realized that instead of providing trunklines to ISP companies who connected the Internet together, they could remove those companies from the loop by providing the services themselves. As external ISPs and competition started to dwindle, so did the benefits and perks.
Seeing the market shift, there were multiple battles in the US. The FCC started regulation, they told companies to simply keep it fair. There were a few cautions and fines issued, but not many. Around 2005, I forget the case, but some telecoms sued, and in 2007 the telecoms won a ruling that allowed ISP many options, and limited FCC authority. The FCC was told to put together more comprehensive rules.
Mobile Internet was near-completely unregulated, but at the time the battle was between incumbent PalmOS, never-quite-enough Windows Mobile, and the latest challenger Blackberry. Devices had Wifi, most had bluetooth, and some also had cellular radios, but Internet access over cell networks was expensive. Then came the iPhone in 2007 and their deal with AT&T. Devices were expensive, at $600+, where high end devices running PalmOS and Windows Mobile were often in the $300-$400 range. Phone plans with Internet were expensive, $60 for the cheapest plans with unlimited data. Contrast with many plans that were $30 for roughly 200 minutes that most people comfortably used, plus unlimited texting. The highest-end plans were $100/month. Given the new technology the 2007 SCOTUS ruling specifically exempted the mobile market.
These days people think of those same costs as cheap, with low-end smart phones costing more than the top-tier business phones of the era. Devices and services used to be far less money, and consumers can get far better deals if people ignore the unlimited-everything plans. A decade ago those unlimited plans were a premium option only purchased by corporate folk who needed them, but today they're the most popular option.
During the brief window of 2007-2008 while comprehensive rules were being written, wire-based ISPs in the US starting to block ports based on features, and both AT&T and Comcast had some patent applications (showcased on Slashdot and similar sites) for blocking or slowing Internet traffic based on various factors. The bandwidth killer at the time was file torrents, ISPs frequently engaged in torrent throttling and occasionally in "torrent scrambling", that ranged from closing Internet sockets mid-use to injecting Torrent packets with corrupted data. The masses responded with encrypted torrents that were harder to break, randomized port selection, and other techniques, so more intrusive detection and scanning was being introduced.
FCC finalized their comprehensive rules, and late 2008 most blocking and scrambling were put on hold. A few companies tried a few more shenanigans, and the FCC changed the rules yet again in 2010.
Another set of lawsuits by Verizon and a few other carriers. In the mean time as video streaming became increasingly popular, ISPs started abandoning their agreements and charging streaming companies more money even though (in theory) those costs are covered through mutual peering agreements. Google paid it as a cost of doing business. Netflix went public about it, documenting how their traffic was being slowed, then they paid and documented how their speeds immediately went up. People mostly didn't care. The Verizon case wound their way through the courts, and by 2014 the 2010 rules were partially accepted, partially rejected. The rejected parts said they were only valid if the companies were regulated as a common carrier.
So the FCC changed their rules again in response to the 2010 court ruling, declaring the companies a common carrier with the Open Internet Order of 2010.
The Open Internet Order was challenged by a bunch of companies. They were consolidated and eventually heard by the SCOTUS.
That is the issue I mentioned earlier in this discussion. By fighting the Open Internet Order all the way up to the SCOTUS, rulings from both 2016 and 2017 invalidate all the major arguments against common carrier status, and declare that both wired and wireless internet service should be regulated under common carrier rules.
Already there are organizations poised to sue if the vote passes. Wired had an article about two hours ago how The Free Press has a lawsuit ready for immediate filing under the "arbitrary and capricious" rules, where governing rules cannot be based on politics, and they're planning on using the recent SCOTUS rulings as evidence. The vote will take place in just a few hours, and they'll file immediately if the rules change.
Even if that case doesn't win, you can be sure the EFF and other organizations will bring their own cases using the SCOTUS rulings to sway the judges. Congress has not passed any new laws on the matter, and the facts haven't really changed, so the SCOTUS rulings will have enormous effect on how judges interpret the law. Since the major arguments are exactly the ones the SCOTUS shot down in the 2015-2016 session, it is hard to imagine the updated FCC rules remaining.
I suspect the new rules will be shot down and the Open Internet Order will be official policy, but the FCC will not enforce the rules.
