The Supreme Court is poised to decide a case this term, Loper Bright, which should help restore more finality to decisions like this.
Because agencies receive considerable deference to their interpretation of the law, even when that interpretation flip-flops every four years, we never get a definitive ruling on what the law says. The Court seems likely to greatly reduce this deference, leading to more consistency.
This would be an OK way of running things if we had a court with any legitimacy. Unfortunately partisanship has ruined any hope of that. (And actually, it would be better if laws could be interpretable by normal people without an SC case, but that would be too sensible).
The overruling of Chevron is not about stripping power from federal agencies, it's about determining who should resolve ambiguities in regulations. Should it be the agency itself, or should it be the branch of government whose job it is to "say what the law is"?
That being said, I don't think Chevron deference has a part to play when it comes to Net Neutrality flip flopping all the time - these are not ambiguous regulations. In that sense I don't agree with the person you're replying to - Loper Bright won't help here. Now, if you want to say that the FCC doesn't have the authority to issue this rule, that's something that was always reviewable by the courts.
The concept that would actually attempt to strip power from agencies is the nondelegation doctrine. While I suspect that has support among a few justices, it would be a very radical change and there is no case on the horizon that I'm aware of that would be a vehicle to implement it.
Hard to see how reducing deference could lead to less consistency. You are literally commenting on a post about the FCC reinterpreting their authority to regulate internet broadband years after the lawsuits over the original Net Neutrality laws concluded.
If Loper Bright had been decided ten years ago we would already know today whether the FCC possessed this authority or not and it would be settled. Instead, we are about to embark on another round of litigation because the FCC just unsettled expectations again.
Case 1: agencies reinterpret the law ever four years in each new administration until the end of time.
Case 2: we figure out what the law means once and apply it going forward until Congress changes it again.
Case 1: Changing after clear notification is not ambiguous.
Case 2: Waiting until every single individual aspect of every single law is litigated means for years to decades the actual meaning is ambiguous until each court case finishes.
Because agencies receive considerable deference to their interpretation of the law, even when that interpretation flip-flops every four years, we never get a definitive ruling on what the law says. The Court seems likely to greatly reduce this deference, leading to more consistency.