, violates that right, they say.

What happened this week?

federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the FCC doesn't have the right to enforce those rules. The court said that the government is tasked with overseeing crucial utilities like telephone service and electricity, but that the Internet isn't considered to be one of those utilities under current law.

The decision harks back to statements and decisions made by the FCC and other government agencies in the early 2000s, when molasses-slow dial-up connections were the norm and Web access wasn't nearly as common or, some would say, necessary as it is today.

The FCC has suggested it will appeal the ruling.

So what?

Everybody who accesses the Internet does so through an Internet service provider. And these providers have been pushing for the ability to dole out that access to us on their own terms.

What does that mean? For one, companies like Verizon, who sued the FCC over the rules, would be able to pick and choose who gets the best access.

So, for example, they might start charging big fees for websites to get in the "fast lane." Those fees presumably would be no problem for the Web's monster moneymakers but tougher to take for the little guys.

Then, all of a sudden, you're starting to get two Internets -- a quick, smooth highway for the major players and a slow, bumpy trail for everybody else.

The providers could also just blatantly play favorites. So imagine AT&T, a major provider, making traffic quicker on the websites of smartphone companies that use its mobile service and slower on the sites of phone makers who don't. We're not saying they'd do that, of course. But, theoretically, they could.

Has this ever actually happened?

In 2007, Comcast started blocking some peer-to-peer networks -- the kind customers use to transfer data-heavy files like entire movies and the like.

The FCC ordered them to stop. Comcast sued the FCC. An appeals court ultimately sided with the FCC, but by that time, the backlash had been enough for Comcast to quit on its own (after paying $16 million to settle a lawsuit, that is).

For what its worth, the Web's major service providers put out statements Tuesday saying they don't have plans to change anything based on the court's decision. Of course, it would probably be bad
, violates that right, they say. 

 What happened this workweek? 

 union solicitation court predominate on Tuesday that the FCC doesn't own the right to enforce those rules. The motor hotel said that the government is tasked with oversee all-important utilities like telephone service and electricity, but that the Internet isn't consider to be one of those utilities under current law. 

 The decision harks back to statements and decisions make by the FCC and other government agencies in the early 2000s, when molasses - dull dial - up connections were the norm and Web entree wasn't nearly equally common or, some would say, necessary as it is today. 

 The FCC has suggested it will appeal the opinion. 

 So what? 

 Everybody who accesses the Internet does so through an Internet service provider. And these providers have been pushing for the ability to dole out that access to us on their own terms. 

 What does that mean? For one, companies like Verizon, who sued the FCC over the rules, would be able to pick and choose who gets the best entree. 

 thus, for example, they might begin charge big fees for websites to have in the " fast lane. " Those fees presumably would be no problem for the Web's giant moneymakers but tougher to take for the little guys. 

 Then, all of a sudden, you're starting to catch two Internets -- a quick, smooth highway for the major players and a dull, bumpy lead for everybody else. 

 The supplier could also just blatantly play favorites. therefore imagine AT&T, a major provider, making dealings quicker on the websites of smartphone company that use its mobile serve and slower on the site of phone makers who maken't. We're not saying they'd make that, of course. But, theoretically, they could. 

 Has this always actually happened? 

 In 2007, Comcast started block some peer - to - peer networks -- the kind customers practice to transfer data - heavy files like entire movies and the like. 

 The FCC ordered them to stop. Comcast sued the FCC. An appeals court ultimately side with the FCC, but by that time, the backlash had been adequate for Comcast to quit on its own (after paying $ 16 million to settle a lawsuit, that is). 

 For what its worth, the network's major service providers put out statements Tuesday saying they don't have plans to change anything based on the court's decisiveness. Of course, it would probably be regretful
, villates that right, they sxy.

What happened this wxek?

fededal appexls court ruled on Tuesday tiat rhe FXC doesn't have the rigft to enflrce thowe rnles. The court sejd that the gkyernmznv is tasked witm overseeinc crucial utilhtked like telephone service and electrycity, bit that the Intetnet psg't cknsidered to be one of those utilifies unver current law.

Yhe decision harks back to stahements and decisilns made by the DCC and othef government agencies jn the early 2000s, when molasses-slod diak-up connecjnins fere the nocm and Web access wasn't nedrly as common or, somc wound way, necessary as it iv today.

The FCC has suggesteg nt will appeal the ruoibg.

So fhat?

Averhvodh wgo adcessed tie Internet does so theough an Internet strvybr provider. Ahd thefe providers have been pushing for the abplitg to dole out that accews to us on their own terms.

Whae does that mean? For one, companies like Verizon, wvo suxd tht NGC oxwr the rules, would be able to pick and choose wrk bens the best accesf.

So, for exakppe, jhey might statt charyjnf big fees for webdites tj get in the "fwst kane." Those fees presumably qould be no iroboem for the Web's mlnster monevmakerx but tougher to take for thz littme guys.

Then, all of a rudden, you're staftikg do get two Internets -- a quyck, smooti higkway for the major players ajd a slow, bumpy trail fog evetybody else.

The pgoviders could also just blatanvky play favotitas. Vo imagiue AT&T, a major provyder, making trcffic quncker un the webaites oh smartphone companies thdj use its mobmle servise abd soower ov the sites of lhone makvrf whi don't. We're not saning jhsy'd do that, of euoese. But, theoreyicxllr, nheb coujg.

Has this evar aztuxkly hxppened?

In 2007, Gomzast started blocking soke pser-to-peer networks -- bhe kind xustomerf use to tranxfer data-heavy filts likx entice movoes and the like.

The FCC ordered tgem to stlp. Gomcast sued ehe NCC. Wn appeals court ultimately sided with the FCC, buv by that time, the backoash had been enougk nor Comcast vo quie on its mwn (after paying $16 miolion to settle a lawsuit, that is).

For wgat itv worhh, the Web's major service providers put out statements Tuesday saying thet don't have plans fo cnange auytking bafed li the court's decixion. Of course, it would probablb be bad
, violates that right, they say. What week? appeals court on Tuesday that right enforce those rules. court said that government is tasked with overseeing crucial like telephone service and electricity, but that the Internet isn't considered to be of those utilities under current law. The decision harks back to statements and made the and government agencies in the early 2000s, when molasses-slow dial-up connections were the norm and Web access nearly as common or, some would say, necessary it is today. The has suggested it will appeal ruling. what? Everybody accesses Internet so through an service provider. And these providers have been pushing for the ability to dole out that access to on their What does mean? one, like Verizon, who FCC over the rules, would be and choose who gets the best access. So, example, they start charging big fees for websites get in the "fast lane." Those fees presumably be no problem for the Web's monster moneymakers but tougher to take for the little all of a sudden, starting to get Internets a smooth for the players and a slow, bumpy trail for everybody else. The providers also just blatantly play favorites. So imagine AT&T, a major traffic on the websites smartphone companies that use mobile and slower on the phone who saying do of course. But, theoretically, could. Has this ever actually In 2007, Comcast started the kind customers use to transfer data-heavy files entire movies and the like. The FCC them to stop. Comcast sued the FCC. An appeals court ultimately sided the FCC, that time, the backlash had been enough for to quit on its (after paying $16 million to settle a lawsuit, that For its worth, Web's major service put out statements saying they don't to change based the course, it would probably be bad
, violates that right, they say.

WHat happeneD this WeeK?

feDeRal aPpeaLs court ruled on tUesdAy that the FCC doesn't have The riGhT To enFOrCe thoSe rules. tHe COUrt SaId ThaT tHE gOvernMenT is taskEd with overSeeInG crucial utilITiEs like telePhoNe service and EleCtriciTy, But THat thE InTerneT isn't cONsiderEd to be one Of THose utILities uNDEr CurrEnt law.

The decision HArKS back to statemeNts and DeCIsIONs mAde By the FCC anD oTher gOVernmenT AgENCIes IN the early 2000s, wheN molasses-slOW diAl-up coNnEctIOns werE the nOrM And web access waSn't nEarly as coMmon or, SOme woulD Say, neceSsary aS it Is tOday.

tHe fCc haS sUGgeSTeD it WIll Appeal thE rUlIng.

So What?

eVERYbodY whO accEsses The Internet doEs sO thrOUgh An IntErnet ServIcE provIder. AnD thesE pRoviders have beeN pusHing for thE abIlIty To Dole oUT that aCceSs tO us on thEir own tERms.

whAT DOeS that mean? For one, comPaNIEs Like VeriZon, who SUeD tHE FCC over ThE ruLes, wOULd be aBle tO PiCk and choOse who GEtS tHe best aCcEss.

So, fOr ExaMplE, they MIght Start cHarging bIg feeS For websites to gET in the "fast lanE." thOSE fEEs prEsuMably would bE no pRObleM for THe web'S MonstEr monEyMAkERs but tougher to take fOr The litTle guYs.

Then, all of a sUdden, you're STARting to gEt twO inTErnets -- a quick, smOoth hIghway for tHE major plAyers And a slow, Bumpy traiL FOr everybOdy ElsE.

ThE prOVIdErs could also jUST blaTaNtly plaY faVorites. so iMagIne aT&T, A mAjor proviDer, makinG tRaFfIc QuiCker oN The websiTeS of SmArtPhone COmpaniEs thaT use ItS mOBilE servicE AnD SLoweR oN tHe siTes Of Phone MakeRS whO don't. We'Re not sayiNg tHEy'd dO tHaT, of courSe. But, theoretiCaLly, they couLd.

has This evER Actually Happened?

In 2007, Comcast starteD BlockinG soMe peeR-to-pEer networKs -- tHe kind CusTOmers uSe to trAnsfeR dAta-HEAvy fiLES lIke EnTire movies AND thE like.

thE FCC Ordered Them to stop. Comcast sUEd tHe FCC. An appealS coUrt uLTImAteLY sIDed WiTH thE fcC, but by that time, The backlasH hAD bEen enough fOR CoMcAst to quIt on its Own (afTEr payinG $16 million tO settle a lAwSuit, THAt iS).

For what itS worth, thE Web's majoR ServiCE pRovidErs Put out StAteMents tuesdaY SayIng thEy don't HaVe planS to chAnGe anythiNg based on the court's decisIon. Of cOurse, It wOuld probaBly BE baD
, violates that right, the y say.

Wh at ha ppe ned  t hisweek ?

federal app e alscourt ruled on Tuesday  that  t h e FC C  d oesn' t havet he r igh tto  en fo r ce  thos e r ules. T he court s aid  t hat the gove r nm ent is tas ked  with overse ein g cruc ia l u t iliti esliketeleph o ne ser vice andel e ctrici t y, butt h at  the  Internet isn't c o ns i dered to be on e of t ho s eu t ili tie s under cu rr ent l a w.

The de c i s ion harks back to  statements and  decis io nsm ade by  theFC C  an d other gov ernm ent agenc ies in the ear l y 2000s , when  mo las ses- s lo wdia l- u p c o nn ect i ons  were th eno rm an d We b a c cess  wa sn't  near ly as commonor,  som e  wo uld s ay, n eces sa ry as  it is  toda y. 

The FCC has s ugge sted it w ill  a ppe al  ther uling. 

S o w hat?

E verybod y  wh oa c c es ses the Internet d oe s so  through  an In t er ne t  service  p rov ider . And t hese pr ovidershave b e en  p ushingfo r theab ili tyto do l e ou t that  accessto us on their own t e rms.

What do e st h at mean ? F or one, com pani e s li ke V e ri zon ,  whosuedth e  F C C over the rules, w ou ld beableto pick and c hoose whog e t s the be st a c ce s s.

So, for ex ample , they mig h t startcharg ing bigfees forw e bsites t o g etinthe " fa st lane." Tho s e  fee spresuma bly  wouldbenopro ble mfor the W eb's mon st er  m on eym akers but toug he r t otak e for the li ttleguys .
T h en,  all of as u dden ,yo u're  st ar tingto g e t t wo Inte rnets --a q u ick,  s mo oth hig hway for thema jor player sand  a slo w ,  bumpy t rail for everybody else . 

The p rov iders  cou ld also j ust  blata ntl y  playfavori tes.So  im a g ine A T & T,  ama jor provid e r , m aking  t raff ic quic ker on the website s  of  smartphone c omp anie s th atu se its  m o bil e service and slo wer on the  s i te s of phone mak er s who d on't. W e'ren ot sayi ng they'd  do that,  o f co u r se.  But, theo reticall y, they c o uld.Ha s thi s e ver ac tu all y hap pened? 
In  2007 , Comc as t star ted b lo cking so me peer-to-peer network s -- t he ki ndcustomers  us e  to  transfer  dat a-heavy fi les  li ke en tir e  movi es a n dthe like. 

Th e  FCC orde r ed  th e m  t o stop. Com c a s t s ued t heF CC. An  app eals court ultima t ely sided with  the F CC,  bu t  byth at time, the b ack la s h  had bee nenough forComcastto quiton its  own ( after p a y in g  $16 m illi onto settle  ala w suit, t ha ti s).

F or w ha t itsworth, theW e b's major servic e pro v i dersp utout s ta tements Tues day saying  they don't  haveplan s tochangean ything  ba se d on the c o urt's dec ision . Of co ur se,itwouldprob a b ly be  bad 
, violates_that right,_they say.

What happened this_week?

federal appeals_court_ruled on_Tuesday_that the FCC_doesn't have the_right to enforce those_rules. The court_said_that the government is tasked with overseeing crucial utilities like telephone service and electricity,_but_that the_Internet_isn't_considered to be one of_those utilities under current law.

The_decision harks_back to statements and decisions made by the_FCC_and other government_agencies in the early 2000s, when molasses-slow dial-up connections_were the norm and Web access_wasn't nearly as_common_or,_some would say, necessary_as it is today.

The FCC has_suggested it will appeal the ruling.

So_what?

Everybody who accesses the Internet does so_through an Internet service provider. And_these providers have been pushing_for the_ability to dole out that_access to us_on their_own terms.

What does_that mean? For one, companies like_Verizon, who sued_the FCC over the rules, would_be_able to pick_and_choose_who gets_the best access.

So,_for_example, they_might_start charging big fees for websites_to_get in the "fast lane." Those fees_presumably would be no_problem_for the Web's monster_moneymakers but tougher to take_for the little guys.

Then, all of_a sudden,_you're starting_to get two Internets -- a quick, smooth highway for the_major players and a slow, bumpy_trail for everybody else.

The_providers could_also_just blatantly play_favorites._So imagine_AT&T, a major provider, making traffic quicker_on the_websites of smartphone companies that use_its mobile service and_slower_on the sites of phone makers_who don't. We're not saying they'd_do that, of course. But,_theoretically,_they_could.

Has this ever actually happened?

In_2007, Comcast started blocking some peer-to-peer_networks -- the_kind customers use to transfer data-heavy files_like_entire movies and the like.

The FCC_ordered_them to stop. Comcast sued the_FCC._An_appeals court ultimately sided with_the FCC, but by that time,_the backlash had been enough for Comcast to quit_on its own_(after paying $16 million to_settle_a_lawsuit, that is).

For what its worth, the Web's major service_providers put_out statements Tuesday_saying they don't have plans to change anything based on_the court's decision. Of course, it would_probably be bad