The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers.

The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for faster video streaming.

The proposal is not a final rule, but the vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers. The FCC will now open the proposal to a total 120 days of public comment. Final rules, aimed for the end of the year, could be rewritten after the agency reviews the public comments.

After weeks of public outcry over the proposal, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency would not allow for unfair, or "commercially unreasonable," business practices. He wouldn't accept, for instance, practices that leave a consumer with slower downloads of some Web sites than what the consumer paid for from their Internet service provider.

He said his plan asks whether paid prioritization should be banned outright, but he will still move forward with the consideration of business arrangements between Internet service providers--such a AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable--and Web content providers, such as Facebook, Google and online startups.

"There is one Internet. It must be fast, it must be robust, and it must be open," Wheeler said. "The prospect of a gatekeeper choosing winners and losers on the Internet is unacceptable."

He stressed consumers would be guaranteed a baseline of service and that the agency would beef up enforcement of companies that strike deals that are harmful for consumers or anticompetitive.

"If a network operator slowed the speed of service below that which the consumer bought, it would be commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited," Wheeler aid. "If the network operator blocked access to lawful content, it would violate our no-blocking rule and therefore be doubly prohibited."

Such business models have drawn fierce criticism from investors, startups and big Silicon Valley firms. They say smaller companies that can't afford to pay for faster delivery would likely face additional obstacles against bigger rivals. And consumers could see a trickle-down effect of higher prices as Web sites try to pass along new costs of doing business with Internet service providers.

One of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled.

"I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future," said Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who said the proposal can't allow for clear fast lanes for the most privileged companies. She said she supported a proposal allowing the agency to consider questions on how it could prevent certain Web sites from being blocked, in addition to figuring out the overall oversight of broadband Internet providers.

"I believe the process that got us to rulemaking today was flawed," she said. "I would have preferred a delay."

Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites. And he promised a series of measures to ensure any new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers. The agency said it had developed a "multifaceted dispute resolution process" on enforcement and would consider appointing an "ombudsman" to oversee the process.

But some consumer advocates doubt the FCC can effectively enforce anti-competitive practices or ensure consumers aren't stuck with fewer choices or poorer service. They note that the FCC will only investigate complaints brought to them, and many small companies and consumers don't have resources to alert the agency.

One proposal that consumer groups applauded was on the open question of whether the government should redefine broadband Internet as a public utility, like phone service, which would come with much more oversight from the FCC.

"Agencies almost always change their rules from the initial proposal -- that is why we have a whole notice and comment period, so that the agency can hear from the public and be educated into making the right decision (or at least the least bad decision)," said Harold Feld, a vice president at Public Knowledge, a media and technology policy public interest group. "Do not freak about the tentative conclusion and proposed rules."

Gabe Rottman, a policy advisor to the ACLU, said the proposal gives too much power to Internet service providers.

“This proposed rule leaves the individual at the mercy of an increasingly concentrated broadband market, in which the big players will be able to act as gatekeepers for online speech, deciding what gets seen and when," Rottman said. "Fortunately, the FCC left the door open to fix this problem by reclassifying broadband internet service as what it really is: a public utility, or in legal terms, a ‘common carrier,’ which we will continue to vigorously advocate for."

The next phase will be four months of public comments, after which the commissioners will vote again on redrafted rules that are meant to take into account public opinion. But the enactment of final rules faces significant challenges.

The proposal has sparked a massive fight between two of the most powerful industries in the country — on one side, Silicon Valley, and on the other, companies such as Verizon and AT&T that built the pipes delivering Web content to consumers’ homes. The telecom companies argue that without being able to charge tech firms for higher-speed connections, they will be unable to invest in faster connections for consumers.

 Blacksails wrote:
I'm no internet-ologist, so can someone explain if and how this will impact non-American residents?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'm no internet-ologist, so can someone explain if and how this will impact non-American residents?

This is primarily a conflict between the US tech industry and the US cable providers. I don't think it'll amount to much outside the US for the typical person.

 Blacksails wrote:


That's what I'm hoping for.

I'm just worried about how it'll affect services like Netflix in Canuskistan.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:


That's what I'm hoping for.

I'm just worried about how it'll affect services like Netflix in Canuskistan.

Well from what I hear, Netflix in the great Mapley North is kind of sucky

 LordofHats wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'm no internet-ologist, so can someone explain if and how this will impact non-American residents?

This is primarily a conflict between the US tech industry and the US cable providers. I don't think it'll amount to much outside the US for the typical person.

whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'm no internet-ologist, so can someone explain if and how this will impact non-American residents?

This is primarily a conflict between the US tech industry and the US cable providers. I don't think it'll amount to much outside the US for the typical person.

This...

It's an old battle... and looking like the cable providers will win.

We'll see how it shakes out on the consumer end.

LordofHats wrote:I've decided I'm willing to let the cable providers become bigger donkey-caves. But in exchange I want all their government subsidies taken away and given to the tech industry. Then I can happily sit back and laugh maniacally as the cable providers all go under

 streamdragon wrote:

whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'm no internet-ologist, so can someone explain if and how this will impact non-American residents?

This is primarily a conflict between the US tech industry and the US cable providers. I don't think it'll amount to much outside the US for the typical person.

This...

It's an old battle... and looking like the cable providers will win.

We'll see how it shakes out on the consumer end.

The FCC had held firm for so long. I really wonder exactly how much money was transferred to the Caymans for them to rush this crap through like they did. Sure, they've debated it before, but always more of a hypothetical type debate. This time it was just "Who wants to frell net neutrality? 3 people? *SLAM* DONE! Hookers and blow for everyone!"

 LordofHats wrote:
I've decided I'm willing to let the cable providers become bigger donkey-caves. But in exchange I want all their government subsidies taken away and given to the tech industry. Then I can happily sit back and laugh maniacally as the cable providers all go under

 streamdragon wrote:

whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'm no internet-ologist, so can someone explain if and how this will impact non-American residents?

This is primarily a conflict between the US tech industry and the US cable providers. I don't think it'll amount to much outside the US for the typical person.

This...

It's an old battle... and looking like the cable providers will win.

We'll see how it shakes out on the consumer end.

The FCC had held firm for so long. I really wonder exactly how much money was transferred to the Caymans for them to rush this crap through like they did. Sure, they've debated it before, but always more of a hypothetical type debate. This time it was just "Who wants to frell net neutrality? 3 people? *SLAM* DONE! Hookers and blow for everyone!"

 whembly wrote:

What guvmint subsides? Specifically....

Are you talking about the monopoly they have in each of the regions???

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

What guvmint subsides? Specifically....

The hundreds of billions of dollars the cable providers have been given over the past half century by the United States government. The subsidies that are the only reason their current douche bag business model is even working (the one where they build regional monopolies). Take that away and the cable industry collapses because it isn't structurally capable of surviving without them.

Are you talking about the monopoly they have in each of the regions???

The monopolies exist because of the subsidies. Because they can fall back on that government money to back their business, enabling them to play this game where they build their industry non-competitively.

 whembly wrote:


Are you sure you're not confusing cable companies with the Bell Telephony companies??? If so, those are two separate animals.

Could they be subsidies programs that any company can qualify for?

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Are you sure you're not confusing cable companies with the Bell Telephony companies??? If so, those are two separate animals.

Not really. The cable companies inherited those subsidies and because they've piggy backed cable TV onto phone services, they combine both subsidies together and use them to push their cable business.

Could they be subsidies programs that any company can qualify for?

They're specifically earmarked by Congress for the industry. You can try to find them in the US budget but that document is utterly ludicrous. Even I've never bothered specifically hunting them down.

 whembly wrote:
So what are all the subsidies are you talking about? Could they be subsidies programs that any company can qualify for?

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So what are all the subsidies are you talking about? Could they be subsidies programs that any company can qualify for?

Even if they weren't specifically ear-marked, I've seen this sort of business stratagem before when I worked at ATR. Basically, the moment a rival company comes sniffing around your subsidies, you drop your rates lower than they can afford to try to build into. When they go away (or more likely, their business goes under), your rates go back up to what they were. The blip in income barely registers (mostly because you already have most of the market on a fixed price contract), but is made up for in government aid.

It happens all over the place, from cattle feed to ebook prices to municipal bond rates.

 LordofHats wrote:
Apparently every major tech company from Google and Amazon to Microsoft and Sun Micro-systems have been gathering support in the background to try and crush this. Pray they win.