The House is set to debate net neutrality, but the debate is already in flux.
The House voted Monday to delay the vote for now and instead take up a new proposal that would allow broadband providers to charge content companies for faster delivery of their content.
The FCC is expected to vote on the plan in the coming days.
But net neutrality supporters are already pushing back against the plan.
The net neutrality debate is at an impasse in the House, and the president’s latest directive would likely result in a deadlock.
On Tuesday, the House passed an amendment that would require the FCC to establish net neutrality rules that are equal to or better than the current rules.
The bill would also require the commission to submit to Congress a plan to reclassify broadband as a common carrier service.
The amendment is expected in the Senate.
President Trump tweeted Tuesday that “no new taxes” were needed to keep the government open, but he did not specify how he would pay for it.
Congress must now pass legislation to reestablish net neutrality as an essential telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.
This would enable consumers to enjoy faster internet speeds and online content for free.
The vote comes after the FCC announced its latest plan to address net neutrality issues.
The agency is set for a vote Tuesday.
Here’s what you need to know.
What is net neutrality?
Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast and Verizon are big players in the broadband market.
They make billions of dollars a year by charging content companies like Netflix for faster data delivery.
In exchange, they receive preferential treatment on the network that delivers those data to consumers.
Net neutrality supporters want to make sure ISPs can’t block or throttle content, or charge content providers extra for faster speeds.
Congress passed a law in 2015 that allowed broadband providers like Comcast to charge companies for access to their networks, known as Title II.
But ISPs can also charge content owners for faster access to those networks.
The new proposal would allow ISPs to charge their content owners, like Netflix, for faster traffic to their websites, and for faster and more reliable delivery of that traffic.
This could make it cheaper for ISPs to offer faster connections to websites and to pay for those connections, the proposal says.
It would also allow for better-than-free access to certain types of content.
In its announcement Tuesday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said Title II “is a framework for allowing ISPs to deliver content and services at speeds that consumers would be happy to pay more for.”
Pai’s proposal would give ISPs the ability to charge for faster network access, the FCC says, adding that it would give consumers an incentive to pay extra for this service.
In addition, Pai’s proposal says that the commission would establish “net neutrality principles” that are equivalent to the current Title II rules.
Pai has said he wants to allow ISPs, like Comcast, to offer better network access to content creators.
But critics say the proposal could give ISPs more power than they already have.
“This proposal creates a regulatory regime that will be much more favorable to ISPs and their broadband providers than the existing net neutrality principles,” said Matthew Levitt, a senior policy analyst at Free Press, an advocacy group.
“There’s a clear conflict of interest.”
How would the proposal change net neutrality in the United States?
The new plan would set rules for internet providers, like cable and satellite companies, to prioritize certain types, like video, over others, like wireless or voice.
These rules would apply to any broadband service that allows for data caps, caps that are often used to slow down and slow down traffic.
For example, in a video game, if a game has a high data cap, then a game that has an unlimited data cap might not be able to provide an unlimited experience.
This could limit the types of games available.
Pai also wants the FCC, not the federal government, to determine the definition of “net zero,” which is when internet service providers no longer need to charge ISPs to reach certain websites or to allow them to charge data companies for quicker data delivery to their users.
This definition, which the FCC is considering, would give broadband providers a power that they already enjoy in the US.
But it would also give them more authority to impose their own rules and fees on internet service consumers and content companies.
This is where the net neutrality fight in the U.S. could become complicated.
For instance, the Congressional Review Act, which lets Congress overturn a presidential decision, could be used to stop the new net neutrality plan.
But Pai and others argue that the bill could actually be a good thing for consumers, since it would allow the FCC “to put more teeth into the existing Title II principles, including the principle of net neutrality.”
Pew Research Center, a non-partisan think tank, says the bill would help to “reestablish a framework that ensures that all Americans can access the internet in a way that is affordable and fair.”
The group also notes that it’s
