Your error is in assuming that this is due to corruption, rather than due to Republicans' philosophical belief that minimal regulation and free markets are better [1]. The Republican position on net neutrality is consistent with, and entirely predictable from, their positions on internet and telecommunications regulations going back long before Citizens United.
> But in narrower scope, the best way is to support the inevitable court case against FCC that will follow their expected decision.
Will there actually be a serious court case? There were court cases when the FCC made net neutrality rules, in both 2010 and 2015, but making a rule requires exercising authority, and so the question of whether or not they exceeded their authority can arise, and be litigated.
In the case of repealing one of their prior rules, instead of making a rule, is there really a plausible litigable issue? Since there is nothing that requires them to have a net neutrality regulation, it is hard to see how they could be exceeding their authority by dropping their net neutrality rules.
As long as they don't make a procedural mistake, it is hard to see what grounds they can be challenged on.
[1] Yes, I know that ISP markets are usually not competitive, which is one of the requirements for a free market to work well, but that's not relevant since I'm not saying that Republicans are right that minimal regulation and markets will protect the internet. I'm just saying that this is what they believe.
You error is in assuming that this is due to corruption,
rather than due to Republicans' philosophical belief that
minimal regulation and free markets are better [1].
In my comment on this proceeding I made the point that, in fact, a competitive market would achieve the desired outcome and that we know this to be the case because it worked with DSL circa 2000. The key at that time was that phone companies were required to allow competing services to use their infrastructure (line sharing rules), so in major cities there were dozens of competing DSL services. I could actually support Pai's proposal if it included reinstating line sharing rules, but clearly he never stopped working for Verizon...
As you point out yourself, this doesn't make any sense if it achieves the opposite goal i.e. less market freedom because of monopolization. Let's assume they aren't that stupid as not to understand all that. Then corruption is the most likely reason for supporting monopolies. And I'm not sure if the other alternative (stupid politicians) is less damaging.
> Will there actually be a serious court case?
There will be. The case will argue that FCC ignored massive feedback about real issues. That's why it's important to actually submit public comments.
> In the case of repealing one of their prior rules, instead of making a rule, is there really a plausible litigable issue?
Yes, the issue would be that they repealed the rule that was solving real problems. I.e. that itself started causing same problems again.
Yes - just like creating a regulation, repealing an existing regulation has to be based on a logical conclusion from factually demonstrable conditions. I found article https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-neutra... to be a good overview of this situation.
I see the donation/lobbying system as something wealthy individuals/groups can use to amplify their voices in political discussion. Equating limiting the amplification factor with censorship seems like a real stretch.
If policy makers are incentivised to make policy which benefits certain groups for reasons other than what best serves their constituents (i.e. to secure party donations) that to me is the essence of corruption.
See how well it works in the context of monopolistic ISPs which basically pay off state legislatures to write laws that ban competition. Who in their right mind would write such awful laws? Only totally clueless or corrupted puppets.
Citizens United allows citizens both rich and poor the freedom to buy politicians.
> Prager University (often stylized as PragerU) is a 501(c)3 non-profit conservative digital media organization.
I'm all for good ideas, but given what the word conservative has come to mean in the context of American politics, I am going to call BS on this one and not bother wasting my time watching some right wing "intellectual" spin lies in the form of "common-sense".
But in narrower scope, the best way is to support the inevitable court case against FCC that will follow their expected decision. That will prompt politicians who are backed by ISP monopolists to propose a "solution", i.e. legislation that will supposedly address Net neutrality.
That's where the real fight will begin. They'll try to push a fake law that won't protect anything but will make it even harder to ever change things for the better. The public will have to put a lot of pressure on their representatives to voice interest in a proper law.
Another part of the solution would be pushing for more municipal networks and for ending of the obnoxious monopolistic grip of Comcast and Co. That also requires repealing a lot of anti-competitive state laws (so again, put pressure on your representatives if you live in one). Real (not fake) competition will naturally prevent many of the issues that Net neutrality tries to address.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC