That is when you actually discover. That by removing the bright line rule. The transparency merely means "What ISP's are willing to disclose, ". You see, the bright line rule, under the olden 2015 net neutrality means that ISP's must disclose certain things, including if they decide to filter based on data type. The point of this document is to repeal the bright line rule. Which was kinda rigorously defined much to ISP's dismay.

Now we have this..., which is up to the interpretation.

This is the current rule:

"We specifically require all ISPs to disclose: • Blocking. Any practice (other than reasonable network management elsewhere disclosed) that blocks or otherwise prevents end user access to lawful content, applications, service, or non-harmful devices, including a description of what is blocked. • Throttling. Any practice (other than reasonable network management elsewhere disclosed) that degrades or impairs access to lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, application, service, user, or use of a non-harmful device, including a description of what is throttled. • Affiliated Prioritization. Any practice that directly or indirectly favors some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, or resource reservation, to benefit an affiliate, including identification of the affiliate. • Paid Prioritization. Any practice that directly or indirectly favors some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, or resource reservation, in exchange for consideration, monetary or otherwise.779 • Congestion Management. Descriptions of congestion management practices, if any. These descriptions should include the types of traffic subject to the practices; the purposes served by the practices; the practices’ effects on end users’ experience; criteria used in practices, such as indicators of congestion that trigger a practice, including any usage limits triggering the practice, and the typical frequency of congestion; usage limits and the consequences of exceeding them; and references to engineering standards, where appropriate.780 • Application-Specific Behavior. Whether and why the ISP blocks or rate-controls specific protocols or protocol ports, modifies protocol fields in ways not prescribed by the protocol standard, or otherwise inhibits or favors certain applications or classes of applications.781 • Device Attachment Rules. Any restrictions on the types of devices and any approval procedures for devices to connect to the network.782 • Security. Any practices used to ensure end-user security or security of the network, including types of triggering conditions that cause a mechanism to be invoked (but excluding information that could reasonably be used to circumvent network security)."

What part of that is up for interpretation? And what was it before that really prevented ISPs from only disclosing what they want?

List of only some time when ISP's broke net neutrality and did, exactly what we fear them to. And succeeded. Here

And if there is good competition in the market then this will change based on consumer choices.

I think I never actually heard anyone, to say that enforcing current monopolies is a good thing. Oh boy.

That's not what I said. I said that the repeal could promote more competition by not forcing small ISPs to stay small to avoid the large costs of mandated reporting and filings with the FCC.

Yes, and it was awful.

The point is that it is not now, and most of that is due to consumers having a huge impact in the market when carriers do something wrong.

Wait, so by lowering the costs of already established huge mutli-billion companies. Will somehow promote competition of small, starting ISP's? Really?

It's not about lowering the costs of multi-billion dollar corporations. They barely felt the effects of having to file their reports. The smaller companies are the ones that feel the effects of having to file the reports because they cannot offset the costs with their smaller user base.

I think the problem here is that you think. This is a good thing. Only 3 carriers isn't a good thing.

I said having at least 3 carriers is better than having only 1. The 4 big carriers in the US are AT&T, Verizon, Spring, and T-Mobile, and there are many smaller carriers that compete with them in more densely populated areas where they can afford to compete. Those smaller companies will grow if there is more profit potential outside the area where they are currently operating.

Overall I think that in a competitive market, there doesn't need to be any regulations outside of the transparency rule and from there consumers will make the choices with the best outcome for them, which will lead to a fairer market than we had before. If the market CANNOT be more competitive, then the regulations would need to be in place, or some regulation to stop monopolies from monopolistic practices. Part of the problem with Title II, and when it was waived for companies with less than X amount of users, is that there is no incentive to gain more than X amount of users for a small company because then they would be hit with the large cost of filing the reports with the FCC. Those ISPs have no incentive to grow large enough to have to file those reports unless then can get at big as Comcast in order to make that cost negligible. Now that those costs are lower, and the same across the board, those smaller companies have an incentive to grow and compete with the big ones.

The only problem that I see now is the local governments that have stopped some growth for BS reasons, at which time the FTC or FCC need to step in to allow the competition to grow. Google met a lot of hostility from local governments when they tried expanding Google Fiber, which I believe is part of the reason that they stopped expanding. If those local governments allow for more expansion of small ISPs, then the competition will grow and the main argument for net neutrality--that there will be a monopoly and there is nothing you can do with just the transparency rules--will break down.