It's all rather confusing, but as I understand this article ( [link to www.wired.com (secure)] it comes down to if you trust the FCC and whoever runs it.

It seems the FCC was trying several years ago to pass rules to keep the internet neutral, whereby internet service providers couldn't play favorites with content or equipment. This was under Bush and Obama. But the FCC's rules kept being challenged in court by ISPs, and one of the arguments against the FCC was that ISPs weren't classified in the same way as say telephone companies, so the FCC was stepping out of their bounds making such rules.

Then in 2014, it appears that the FCC tried to pass something that would allow for internet "fast lanes" (according to a different article, the FCC felt they had to broaden what was considered neutral, since they kept being challenged in court by ISPs). So then in 2015, the FCC changed strategy and attempted to have ISPs reclassified to be in a similar category as telephone providers, which would then allow the FCC better legal grounds for whatever rules they wanted passed. This was allowed by the courts to stand.

Then in 2017, another vote threw out the 2015 rules. So ISP's wouldn't be like telephone companies, thus undermining the FCC's standing to impose rules, and thus leaving only the FTC to oversee ISPs. But the FTC is more limited than the FCC and can't pass rules, it can only step in if an ISP does something that's actually illegal.

So today's vote seems to overturn the 2017 vote (although it doesn't undo the 2017 rules? confusing), so I guess ISPs go back to being categorized like telephone companies, and the FCC is back to more oversight of ISPs. Which one would hope would mean that the FCC would go back to establishing net neutrality. Although they could try to pass rules again like what they tried in 2014 that would've allowed fast lanes. So perhaps it's all a matter of who is in charge of the FCC and what sort of rules the agency will try to pass?

TLDR; -- Basically, it seems you can either have the FCC trying to pass what rules they want, or you can have the FTC in charge who can't pass any rules and who can only stop outright illegal activities. Depends which scenario you consider potentially worse.