Expect the first couple months to be lawsuits brought by ACLU, et al and some (mostly online/armchair) protesting. Once the lawsuits fail, the public will realize there's nothing that can (conveniently) be done, and most will go back to life as usual when they see that nothing much has really changed. But behind the scenes, they will slowly--almost imperceptibly--be ratcheting things up: Extorting companies too big to fail or for the average person to care out ("let the giants fight among themselves", after all), and boxing consumers into a perfect corner where they still get everything they need to go back to sleep.

The tradeoffs will be slight: A couple dollar surcharge here, a couple dollars higher bill to "keep up with operating costs" each year, fringe websites phased out, VPN/TOR/torrent crackdown, more user data sold, etc. but the public will still have their YouTube, their Facebook, their NetFlix, and their Steam accounts, so what's the hullabaloo, right?

Sinister things will be at play, but it won't be that overt, and very quickly it will be accepted as "just the way things are."

 

Last edited: Dec 16, 2017

I think the response will be more vitriolic and sustained, judging from some of the initial responses.
They have angered the hive and much more.

US states are planning to sue the FCC as well....

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ine-up-to-sue-fcc-over-net-neutrality-repeal/

https://www.wired.com/story/after-fcc-abandons-net-neutrality-states-take-up-the-fight/

 

I would pay more than $280 just to watch him do it to again to a local DJ here in the states.

 

The aim of the repeal was to push it congress, so that permanent laws can be enacted where you would have a multi-million dollar lobby vs some fringe groups and people's rights. The executive order that made internet service a title 2 utility never gave lobbyists a chance as it was done over their objections and with complete disregard of a profit motive (that's generally how government is supposed to work - but meh.)

Generally states don't have any authority to regulate or impose rules on telecommunications entities as they span multiple states due to their nature. However, if states can sue the FCC you can in court get a useful definition of what internet service actually is. Is it legally defined as a form broadcast entertainment communications which would place it under the steward ship of the FCC or is it a utility that is a basic necessity of modern life (which states can regulate and can impose their own rules and punitive charges upon.)

This is going to be interesting because cable companies (especially the ones who previously were telephone companies) have used their state granted rights to access utility poles / road works / and utility tunnels as means to expand their networks, when they did so they did it by enacting the rights of way that were granted to them as utilities. However, this doesn't cover their entire networks, some of them did dig their own trenches, with their own money, etc...

The big money grab in court is going to decide who gets paid - states or federal law makers. It's not as dystopic as that and some states mostly the ones on the coasts will enact some for of protections for their citizenship if a judge decides that broadband internet is a utility and not a broadcast/entertainment commodity. On the federal side those guys want to make the rules as well and public outrage is a good reason for them to take on something they've been trying to avoid for years - mainly a fight with the states (as most of the people who would be fighting states rights to self governance are ideologically in support of states rights to make their own rules.)

Fun times ahead... everyone will be bobbing for apples and like everything else that is worth more than dime, it will have to go through courts and judges so that it can be defined before it gets legislated.