Net Neutrality Neutered: How the Verizon Court Decision Affects You

On Tuesday, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck a possibly fatal blow to the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules. The case, brought by Verizon against the FCC, has significant implications for the future of Internet access. But while the 2-1 ruling may seem like a death knell for the open Internet, there's still hope that net neutrality can live on.
A Grave Situation for Consumers
Net neutrality isn't just a popular buzzword; it's the guiding concept behind a set of rules adopted by the FCC in 2010. The Open Internet rules are intended to promote Internet service provider transparency, and prevent ISPs from blocking or unreasonably discriminating against lawful online content. However, the appeals court ruled that the FCC doesn't have the authority to dictate how ISPs grant access to content, though the agency retained its ability to regulate broadband providers on more general terms.
The trouble for consumers is that this ruling leaves room for provider abuses. Without regulation from the FCC, broadband providers could "either block competing internet services on their landline networks, or charge those companies extra for features like guaranteed delivery or higher performance," according to Engadget. For example, an ISP like Comcast could feasibly ask a website like DealNews to pay a fee to guarantee Comcast customers access to the site. If our site chose to pay, then another ISP like Verizon could block its users' access to this article because our site was working with a competitor. And because many ISPs have a monopoly over the broadband in their service areas, consumers will just have to deal with throttled speeds and blocked sites — or give up their Internet access.
Net Neutrality Limps On (for Now)
All is not yet lost for net neutrality. Tuesday's ruling is likely to be appealed, if not by the FCC, then by consumer advocacy groups. Another option would be for Congress to pass a law giving the FCC more power to regulate broadband, but that seems unlikely in the current political climate. According to Slate, the best option would be for the FCC to rewrite its rules, so it can stop classifying the Internet services provided by cable and phone companies as "information services" (which it does not have the authority to regulate), and instead treat them as "telecommunications services" (which the FCC does have authority over).
For what it's worth, in its response to the court's decision, Verizon offered its assurance that customers wouldn't see interruptions in their Internet access: "Verizon has been and remains committed to the open Internet that provides consumers with competitive choices and unblocked access to lawful websites and content when, where, and how they want." Verizon echoed the sentiments of other Internet providers and net neutrality opponents when it hailed the decision, saying it will foster innovation in the marketplace and give customers more choices.
Despite Verizon's rosy words, the reality is that for the time being we are at the mercy of our ISPs. The good news is that the public outrage generated by this decision is likely to spur the FCC to action in quickly repairing the damage to its net neutrality rules.
Readers, how do you feel about the ruling? Will you be closely monitoring your ISP for abuses in the coming months, or do you think this whole net neutrality thing has been blown out of proportion? Give us your take in the comments below!

I am a big believer in free market, but this borderlines on extortion. Some areas only have one ISP to choose from (like I do). How is that "free market" when you don't actually have a choice? Well, I guess some smarta__ will say "you don't HAVE to have internet" and they're basically right, but that still doesn't justify the ISPs blocking/slowing certain sites. Internet is such a part of our lives now that choosing to not have internet is like choosing to not have electricity.
Verizon's Q3 2013 profit was in excess of 2 billion.
Their stance is one of pure and total greed.
More importantly, does anyone think the entities involved (both the content providers and the ISPs) aren't going to come to mutually beneficial terms here? What benefit is it to either side to be inflexible? Is there any real evidence that says the ISPs have been throttling network traffic unacceptably? For heavy users, won't there be an ISP data plan that accommodates your need? If I watch rather little streaming traffic, why should I pay for what the data monster next door uses?
Petition signed.
Just to clarify, the court held that the FCC has authority to regulate broadband and ISPs. From the court's opinion (which I link to above): "The Commission, we further hold, has reasonably interpreted section 706 to empower it to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic, and its justification for the specific rules at issue here — that they will preserve and facilitate the “virtuous circle” of innovation that has driven the explosive growth of the Internet — is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence."
The question of whether ISPs provide information services or telecom services is a matter of classification that previous courts (and Congress) have left to the FCC. Sorry if that was unclear! If you'd like to read more about the intricacies of this debate, I highly recommend this (colorfully worded) article from The Verge: .theverge.com/...e-death-of-the-internetrnet[/url]
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/...ality/b3FLR9jK
What I have a problem with is Slate (and Dealnews?) implying that the FCC should just redefine what they can regulate to make it so. The whims of the Executive branch (no matter who holds the Presidency) do not and should not trump laws as passed by elected representatives. That would be Congress. If Congress had the Constitutional authority to do so and wanted the FCC to regulate ISPs, they would have passed such a law. They haven't.
You really want unaccountable and faceless bureaucrats in Washington to be in charge of every aspect of your life? You may want to read a little history (just about any time and government will do) and see how that works out. Or you may already understand what the implications are, and be content to be 'safe' under the thumb of (eventual) tyrants.
As for talkenrain, I submit that you have the answer and don't even understand it. What you have so simply and eloquently stated is the basis of the free market. Welcome to freedom...
Cable is a monopoly that has gotten out of control and the FCC is to blame.