> But what were some of effects of his policies to an internet user like me. I didn't see anything different.
On neutrality, that's unsurprising, largely because nothing has changed with stability sufficient to justify major expenditures. Neutrality was an FCC policy goal pursued/enforced by different means for a long time, and even before the repeal went into effect there was talk of legal challenges and state replacements to it; several states in fact have adopted there own net neutrality laws, and the legal challenges to the FCC repeal (which failed to negate the repeal itself, but did strike down the attempt to preempt state neutrality laws) didn't end until the middle of last year. So, just as before, the status quo is most fixed broadband providers acting basically neutral with comparatively modest (and not systematic across the market) deviations, waiting to see how the regulatory landscape eventually stabilizes and trying to avoid provoking negative responses that might tip the balance against themselves, and many mobile providers being decidedly non-neutral (even where the most recently repealed Open Internet Order would have imposed some requirements on them, though previous neutrality approaches did not.)
> What changes will I see as an internet consumer with this new appointment.
Well, basically none, because the FCC isn't going to take any new policy direction other than perhaps in response to new issues without strong partisan divides when it's 2-2, no matter who the chair is.
When the vacant seat is filled, then you might see some policy changes.
According to Pai, 3mbps passes the bar for high speed internet [0]. This is what happens when you let a lobbyist in charge of setting goals. Just imagine what could be done if everyone in America had 50mbps symmetrical.
Regarding net neutrality, I have no doubts that many ISPs had really profitable ways to monetize this change. The real question was how long until net neutrality was restored? Probably not long enough for an ISP to really do something about it.
Truth is carriers and ISP completely missed the boat around 2008 when Steve Jobs effectively turned them into bandwidth providers, a commodities market. All the value added on top of the network connection is now captured by Apple and Google.
Better bandwidth, combined with remote work simply means that several communities will become viable for a lot of professionals that can arrange for partial work from home.
Think beach houses, lake houses. Communities that would benefit from an influx of people. And less traffic in our cities.
> concrete examples of effects on an average end user
Makes it legal to throttle Netflix so much it'll be unusable. You'll have to add an extra X$ a month (on top of your Netflix subscription) to be able to use it.
Some ISPs have started zero rating certain services.
You might think the effect of this is good to you as an Internet user, but this is the beginning of tying services to ISPs which is the "trojan horse" that is the start of undermining the freedom of service choice a neutral Internet can give you.
And this is why we have things like advertising polluting everything, social media bubbles making everything less social, ISPs that can legally sniff your traffic for advertising, hypercentralized services that can cut you off from services at the drop of a hat, etc. because "this is the beginning" isn't concrete enough.
But what were some of effects of his policies to an internet user like me. I didn't see anything different.
What changes will I see as an internet consumer with this new appointment.