[OkayPhysicist]

That's because, to my knowledge, none of the major internet providers took advantage of it being eliminated, presumably because the idea of "faster internet access to Netlfix" or whatever didn't test well with audiences who were used to the status quo of net neutrality. Had the ban remained in place, it's possible that status quo would have been slowly been eroded.

EDIT: Upon reading another comment, and California's Net Neutrality law, it's also possible that ISPs didn't deem it worth it to see if California would sue companies that provide net-neutral service to Californians but non-net neutral service to out-of Californians.