Unfortunately, if you have a contentious issue which is decided by fiat of one of the sides being in power and not by mutual compromise, there's no reason for the other side, coming in power, to not change it back. Since, fortunately, we still have a functioning democracy in the US, the sides in power change. Since, unfortunately, there seems to be not enough will to reach a workable compromise satisfactory to both sides, flip-flopping will likely continue in the foreseeable future, until either societal consensus moves firmly on one side of the issue to the point that makes other side's position untenable, or some mutually agreeable compromise emerges.
At it's core, it is a technical issue - primarily network management. Under NN framework, ISPs would adhere to minimal straightforward rules that would disallowed them from prioritizing, throttling, capping, purposefully degrading, etc wireline networks. For most of 2 decades, this is where NN lived.
In apparent response to NN becoming reality, ISP funded representatives began echoing the talking points of ISP lobbyist groups and contention was born.
I don't think it's a technical issue. The implementation is technical, but the implications are societal. Is the state allowed to restrict ISPs from certain forms of network management? How far the governmental control over ISP actions can go? Does such restriction benefit the society? I'm sure a lot of people have opinions on these questions, but it's not a technical issue and not one that has an obvious correct solution. It's not like "is quicksort better than bubble sort" (even that is not 100% clear cut but let's not get into the weeds) where you can make mathematical arguments and tests to establish the conclusion. It's a matter of values and policies, and as such, it's bound to produce disagreement. I don't think it's also useful to frame it as "it all worked super awesome and then greedy capitalists stole it from us by their dirty tricks". It's usually not how it works and it's not what happened in this case.
