Not long ago, net neutrality was little more than a buzzword to most Americans, an arcane concept within an equally arcane sector of telecommunications law. But fierce resistance to a plan proposed last spring by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler that Internet advocates said would have undermined net neutrality — the principle that all data traversing the Net should be treated equally by Internet service providers (ISPs) — has pushed the once obscure concept into the spotlight in Washington.

And today, as Wheeler prepares to deliver his latest proposal on net neutrality, advocates for an open Internet seem to have won.

The plan Wheeler announced last May would have permitted ISPs such as Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner to give faster, priority access to sites and services able to pay for it as long as those deals were deemed commercially reasonable. But in a surprising about-face, he is now proposing rules that ban that practice by treating wired and wireless broadband Internet as a public utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — much like the telephone system.

“The Internet must be fast, fair and open. That is the message I’ve heard from consumers and innovators across this nation,” Wheeler wrote today in an article for Wired. “That is the principle that has enabled the Internet to become an unprecedented platform for innovation and human expression ... The proposal I present to the commission will ensure the Internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans.”

The FCC is slated to vote on the proposal on Feb. 26. If the rules pass in a form resembling Wheeler’s and the FCC’s descriptions, they will prevent ISPs from throttling, blocking or prioritizing Internet traffic, firmly establishing net neutrality principles for the foreseeable future. For advocates, that means giving consumers equal access to websites and services, preserving the level playing field that gave rise to companies such as Google and Facebook and allowed competition to thrive online. The telecom industry, on the other hand, has equated regulating ISPs with regulating the Internet itself, arguing that Title II restrictions would disincentivize broadband investment.

The turnabout of the last few months has come as a shock to telecommunications companies and even net neutrality advocates, who until recently had few powerful allies in their corner. For years, deep-pocketed telecoms such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast have lobbied heavily against rules that would stop them from creating fast and slow lanes, all while arguing they favor net neutrality. Without those rules, large ISPs are free to create what they call paid prioritization arrangements. That means that in addition to charging customers for Internet access, they can also charge websites and services (such as Netflix, Amazon and your next door neighbor's blog) for the privilege of reaching users quickly. And because the FCC previously classified Internet providers under rules for information services rather than Title II telecommunications companies, a court ruled last year that the agency can’t stop them from selectively speeding up and slowing down traffic.

But the tide quickly turned — notably after comedian John Oliver's viral video segment attracted enough comments from opponents of the FCC proposal to crash the agency’s website. The ensuing publicity led to dozens of Internet companies, including Netflix, Reddit and Mozilla, coming out strongly in favor of Title II net neutrality rules; in November, they were joined by President Barack Obama.

Now, according to Wheeler and senior FCC officials, the proposal will apply Title II authority to enforce three bright line rules: no blocking, no throttling and no paid prioritization. At the same time, it will not grant the FCC the authority to take other steps that normally apply under Title II, such as regulating prices and forcing large providers to unbundle their network cables so that they can be sold to smaller ones.