but is this the end for free and open internet?

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Hi, this is Annie filling in for DNews.

On Tuesday, a US Court of Appeals

ruled against the Federal Communications Commission

in a decision that voided much of the FCC's existing

net neutrality rules.

The ruling was the result of a suit filed

by Verizon who charged that the FCC's neutrality rules violated

their First and Fifth Amendment rights.

Those rules, which the FCC put in place in 2010,

dictate a few things.

Basically ISPs can't discriminate

against certain types of traffic,

can't block any lawful content, and should

be open and transparent with customers

with how they manage their traffic.

But in this decision, the court rejected those rules

on the grounds that, quote, "The commission

failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti

blocking rules do not impose, per se,

common carrier obligations."

Common carriage is a legal concept

that informs the regulation of traditional telecom companies.

In 2002, though, the FCC classified

ISPs as information services rather than

telecoms, which weakened the relevance of common carrier

principles as a framework in this case.

What does this all mean though?

Basically, this decision would allow broadband providers

much more freedom in creating new pricing

models for internet, and to strike deals

with internet companies or content providers

deliver their content more readily to consumers.

We don't know yet how a ruling like this

would shake out in deals among the ISPs, internet companies,

and content providers, and then trickle down to us consumers,

but one possible scenario is tiered internet service

where ISPs could charge more to companies

like Netflix or Google to deliver their traffic faster.

Together, just those two companies make up over half

of all internet traffic, according

to one study by the firm Sandvine in 2013.

But advocates for net neutrality say that pricing environment

will hamper innovation, in effect killing

the current open atmosphere, where anyone with an idea

can build it online at relatively low cost.

And more broadly, some are worried that the decision could

give broadband companies too much power in deciding

what content is freely available.

I don't think too many of us are in love

with the idea of Verizon choosing what we can see,

but does this mean that net neutrality is dead?

Not exactly.

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler pointed out in a blog post

that the court's decision did concede that the FCC has

the authority and the responsibility

to regulate the activities of broadband networks.

In other words, the court rejected

the framework offered by the FCC,

but not the idea that they can regulate internet providers.

Someone just has to come up with a better framework

for regulating the uncharted territory that is the internet.

And the FCC says they might appeal

the ruling, in which case it could end up

in the Supreme Court.

But either way, the battle isn't over, so let us know your take.

Will this decision be bad for consumers?

As always, you can weigh in with us

on Twitter or Facebook, @DNews, and you

can ping me as well, @AnnieGaus.

Thanks for watching.