I'd be more sympathetic to that if this FCC had done anything productive to expand the competitive landscape for ISPs.

Where I live we have exactly two choices, and one is satellite based.

I mean, that is what Pai claims to be doing here: reducing regulatory burden on smaller ISPs so that more can compete.

"Monday, we are ending this flawed approach and allowing smaller internet service providers to focus their efforts on deploying more broadband, connecting more Americans with digital opportunity, and offering more competition in the marketplace." [1]

[1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-our-job-is-to-protect...

Right, but many areas have entered into township agreements where only one provider is allowed to provide service to residents. These agreements carry fun legal print like requiring the town to reconvene with the provider before the agreement can be terminated... at which point, the provider will give whatever benefits the smaller provider was intending to provide and then some.

I don't buy it. This won't change anything. Except for how less useful your internet connection would be.

If the focus were on smaller ISPs, why not make the new rules target only smaller ISPs instead of all of them?

How did that work out between 2005 and 2015?

Before 2015 they had the same regulatory landscape, and no additional competition.

Not quite. There were net netrality regulations before 2015, but it was struck down because isp's weren't under title 2, so in 2015 they were reclassified under title 2. Thats what was ended.

How could net neutrality possibly increase costs of compliance for small businesses? Net neutrality is a default state.

By virtue of this state being regulated, smaller businesses have to spend a non-trivial percentage of their money ensuring compliance with regulation.

This is a theory that has no backing evidence with this specific issue.