So I read like the first sentence of the article the op linked and realized it's sensationalist misinformation and then decided to, you know - read the actual court opinion of the case.
Anyways - what's really going on here is the FCC overstepped their bounds. They attempted to regulate telecommunications in a way that both (1. they had no statutory authority to do so and (2. expressly went against the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed by congress.
tl;dr = FCC claimed that a clause in 47 U.S.C.A. § 1302 giving them power to "remove barriers to infrastructure investment" in the internet enabled them to enforce net neutrality.
Later in 1996 congress passed the Telecommunications Act that said the FCC could only do this by requiring providers to disclose what they are doing and NOT by forcing them to treat everyone the same; the FCC could NOT classify ISPs as "common carriers" [innkeepers, motel owners, people who are generally required to be open to everyone for the public good - has ancient origins].
FCC tried to make a "penumbra" argument that the spirit of words of a whole bunch of other irrelevant legislation gave them power but the court called bullshit on that.
So I see there are a lot of Europeans here so I'll explain what's going on here - this isn't political in the sense you're thinking. America really adheres to separation of powers. Furthermore - more laws are passed by regulatory bodies like the FCC than by congress. In a sense those regulatory bodies are like a 4th branch for us. When the regulatory bodies try to do things that go directly against another body - like congress in this instance - it's a BIG no-no.
