Give us your best quick definition of net neutrality.

Net neutrality is the idea of unfettered access to lawful content on the web. Most people have come to take it for granted, but we're talking about being able to access video, websites and print materialand to do so without discrimination or interference from your ISP [Internet service provider] or broadband provider.

Why can't the FCC just enforce net neutrality?

It all comes down to a classification problem, which, in part, stems from a ruling in 1980 that separated telecommunications into "basic services"or pure telephonic transmissionsand "enhanced services"or data transmissions. Later, Broadband and cable modems were placed in the enhanced category, now classified as information services, which fall under Title I jurisdiction under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Telecommunications [like your phone line] remained in the "basic services" category, now governed under Title II.

These classifications have been causing trouble for the FCC for a decade and a half. If a service falls under Title II jurisdiction, then the FCC has broad power to regulate it. But for services like broadband, which fall under Title I, that's not the case. So we've been stuck playing this game of how to regulate the Internet without really having the full power to treat broadband as a telecommunications service.

Has this classification problem already affected Internet-related court cases?

Definitely. [Take one example from] 2007: Internet users notice that they're having trouble accessing peer-to-peer files via BitTorrent. They figure out that the interference is coming from Comcast, and the FCC orders Comcast to stop throttling traffic. Comcast appeals the order and, in 2010, the D.C. Court of Appeals rules in their favor. That was really the first strike against the FCC and its ability to regulate Title I services.

What about the Open Internet Order?

The FCC was preparing to issue their Open Internet Order right around the same time as the Comcast v. BitTorrent case. Some hoped that the FCC would take the bold step of reclassifying broadband as a Title II telecommunications service.

In the end, they stuck with the current system but established new rules for ISPs. Essentially, the FCC said that providers must disclose information about network practices, that they cannot block lawful content outside of "reasonable network practices," and prohibited them from "unreasonably discriminating" against lawful traffic.

But that didn't quite work out, right?

Well, the Open Internet Order is actually the order that Verizon appealed in the 2014 case that everyone is now talking about. The court struck down the FCC's anti-blocking and anti-discrimination provisions.

As before, the case turned about the issue of classification. The FCC might have the authority to regulate Internet content, but not the power to order anti-blocking or anti-discrimination, which looks too much like a Title II telecommunications or "common carrier" regulation.

So is it true that the FCC wants to protect net neutrality, but that our legal system won't let them?

Not entirely. In these cases, the court tends to agree with the principle of net neutrality, and even the FCC's ability to regulate. But the courts always push back against the FCC, saying that it is stepping too far.

Chairman Wheeler has promised that the FCC will require broadband providers to act in a "commercially reasonable manner." What's that mean?

No one really knows what that means. It's probably going to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and a lot of people are very concerned about that. What's "commercially reasonable" under this administration may not be under the next. The FCC is, for better or for worse, tied to politics.

Sounds like a mess. Could we fix it?

One of the only ways to fix this would be to reclassify broadband as a Title II telecommunications service. And most people would agree with the idea that broadband transmissions are really more like Title II.

Historically, your ISP was providing information serviceslike the old AOL that was a portal for email, content etc. But today, when you log onto Comcast or Verizon, you are really just looking to transmit information through their pipes. If that's the reality of the marketplace, broadband should be regulated like telecommunications.

Why doesn't Wheeler just reclassify broadband and be done with it?

He might. We'll find out where exactly the FCC is coming from on May 15.

But the argument against reclassification isn't entirely politicalit's also ideological. There is a genuine debate, even among net neutrality proponents, over whether you want the FCC to have the power to regulate the Internet. Admittedly, someone has to oversee it, but some say that the future of the Internet shouldn't be in the hands of the FCC. In any case, to date, the political willpower has not been sufficient to take the bold step of reclassification.

Virtually everyone agrees that net neutrality is a good thing. The debate is, how do you get there? And, do you do more harm than good through regulation?

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io