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Yes, the issue would be that they repealed the rule that was solving real problems.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.
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.