With the caveat I’m technical not legal… Its largely kept data caps off domestic lines, but not entirely. Net neutrality has had a couple taking points and its a long fight at the FCC that’s gotten weirder by the decade.
Net neutral meant Microsoft couldn’t make the MSN dial up network prefer windows network traffic, over the years companies got smart and just opted to pay for peering instead of running the low profit access tunnel.
Google even drops boxes to cache stuff at tiny ISPs/WISPs, but doesn’t deprioritize traffic to other end points.
There have been intermittent swings at labeling this the pay to play it is, but since the investment isn’t spilling out of public works there’s a decent case this is the fastest you could give out access to everyone.
Source: am former network closet guy who racked google cache devices, installed WISP equipment, legal layman.
That’s industry talking!
"Net Neutrality policies are a national standard by which we ensure that broadband internet service is treated as an essential service. It prohibits internet service providers from blocking, throttling, or engaging in paid prioritization of lawful content. "
So if they block or throttle you when you hit a cap…
Seriously this is probably lost to time, but we were setting up for this battle in the DSLAM era because every provider over sold their bandwidth. It lays pretty much untested because nobody was worried about pennies in a gold rush and that’s about the time fiber backbone started to make the problem irrelevant again.