>> this is al jazeera america. i'm tony. >> tomorrow the vatican sits down with the united nations to discuss the decision of child abuse i in the catholic church. the budgets bill spending bill passed, and now the bill moves to the senate for a vote later this week. president obama is in raleigh, north carolina, where he unveiled th the economy. the report on the attack of

bengahzi could have been prevented. security officials ignored warnings about threats to american personnel. the ambassador to libya was one of those killed in the attack. and the united states is renewing the image to help syrians affected by the war. the united nations said $2.4 billion has been raised so far. those are the headlines. i'm tony harris. those are the headlines for this news hour. inside story is next for al jazeera america. >> riding on that information super highway. it turns out there are fast and slow lanes. new rules which means you may have to pay for the quickest ride on inside story.

hello, i'm ray suarez. put a plug in a wall socket. electricity powers and appliance. there is no better or worse electricity. it's the same juice supplied to your neighbors in mansions or shacks. head into a hotel lobby, people who stay more often have their own check-in line, get a different level of service and access to a nicer room. you can stay but you may not get the same service reserved for better customers. a federal court was asked basically is the internet like a regulated utility or a private business free to provide different levels of service. that eyes-glazed over term net neutrality may not make your courts race bupulse race but th'

decision may slow down your net travel. >> reporter: they'll go back to the board to keep the web service equal to all. they struck down rules protecting the openness of the internet. it's the latest twist in the battle over net neutrality. >> remain firmly committed to net neutrality to keep the internet as it should be, open and free. >> reporter: in 2010 the fcc put rules in place prohibiting broadband providers like verizon and att from blocking lawful content. rules also prohibited these providers from discriminating against any traffic on the system, meaning all content on the internet would be treated equally whether it's movies you stream, the online games you play or the websites you browse. verizon sued the fcc saying it did not have the authority from

congress to make these rules. while they upheld the authority, the court tossed the fcc's rules saying they were built using a flawed legal argument. at the heart of this debate is what is called common carrier regulations. a notion borne out of other parts of our daily lives like public transportation. common carriage laws are meant to ensure all people have access to fundamental services. in that way the internet is like a highway, and internet service providers like a bus company, say a bus company that transports passengers from one city to another is free to operate as a business on u.s. roads. because that company is using a public roadway the carrier cannot discriminate between customers. in the same way common carriage is used to guarantee even if passengers use a lot of internet or just a little, they can all ride the same bus. the court ruled the fcc use the

common carrier law as a basis for its internet rules. and since common carrier rules don't apply to broadband the fcc rules are invalid. now the fcc is free to rewrite the rules using a different wase

language was pretty emphatic. where does it leave congress and the fcc moving forward? >> well, i think the district or the circuit courts' decision is first of all a landmark decision, a very important one for the american people. i would say that they ruled in favor of what has always been at the heart of telecommunications law in our country dating back to the early 30s when the fcc was actually the federal communications commission was established, and that is to the public good. to serve the public.

in this decision, which was--it was a lawsuit that was brought by verizon. verizon did not brought the fcc--they were challenging that the fcc have any authority whatsoever to regulate in this square, so to speak, and they lost. the court said that the fcc clearly has the authority to address broadband in our country. so that's a very, very, very important decision, and i think a victory. now, what was very interesting also was to read what the court said in terms of why it threw out two parts of the challenge from the fcc. and it was really because of how they coupled both two issues

that they found that using it under one umbrella that the court didn't accept that. but does the federal communications commission have the authority to go back and to rewrite that? they do. they made that clear in their decision. so i'm very pleased with the decision. i think it's an important one for the american people. i don't think that the congress especially the makeup of th the--especially the house of representatives will like that, but the fcc does have the authority to address blocking and anti-discriminatory action. i think they will. >> so in your view the fcc can go back and retake some of the power it gave away by exempting the internet from common carrier requirements? >> well, i think that the fcc,

the court actually, the way they wrote the decision, explained why they rejected that those two parts. it was because they enjoined them both blocking and anti-discrimination, they joined them under common carrier rules. and the court said we don't think you can enjoy both of those under that rule. they've given them a road map of how to go forward and do it. why is this important? it's important because of the magnificent introduction that you gave. the internet has been open and free. no company regardless of its size no matter what it's stock price is should not be able to block content that perhaps doesn't belong to them and someone else wants to have access, nor should the public, the consumer, the american

consumer be subjected to slow lanes or fast lanes simply because a corporation finds that that is more profitable for them. these are very important principles. >> i'm glad you used that phrase "open and free." it's the same phrase that the president used. the open providers say it may be open and free, but someone has to pay to do that technical upgrade. they think if they pay they should get the inside lane, why not? >> well, i'm thrilled that, and i've seen this, i've witnessed it since i've come to congress that over $1.2 trillion has been invested in this very important infrastructure. we're lagging in other areas of infrastructure in our country, but this is 21st century infrastructure. it affects how we work, how we

educate, how we learn, how we do business, and that investment of $1.2 trillion has more than played my congressional district on the map. everyone around the world associates themselves with silicon valley, who is there, what we do, what we promote. so i'm not opposed to profit. but profit in the--and the public square, we have a responsibility, members of congress, to make sure that there is an even playing field, and that no consumer is--excuse the expression "screwed by anyone" simply because they have a corporate interest. do i think the interests can be combined? the public and the private sector? of course. they have, and that's why they've invested so much. if this was bad business to go

into my region would not be flourishing, silicon valley would not be respected as it is around the world, and our telecommunications infrastructure and internet, free open accessible internet, that structure would not be admired around the world. so i don't fall for that premise that you just described. >> representative anna eshoo joins us from capitol hill. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. it's a pleasure. >> we'll take a short break, up next we'll try to follow the money, and we'll try to find out if the fast internet means you'll pay more. this is "inside story."

>> the rules that govern the operation of the internet. that's today's "inside story." joining us for the rest of today's conversation on net neutrality craig aaron, the president of free press, an advocacy group, and maria

norton, and roslyn layton, a visiting fellow from the american institute center internet and technology policy. she advises mobile phone operators, and roslyn, what do you make of what the congresswoman just said. it's still within the fcc to revisit and re-establish net neutrality? >> i agree with quite a lot the congresswoman's comments. i think its fantastic she pointed out the $1.2 trillion investment that has been going on since 1996, that's about $50 billion a year. she's quite right. this is not at all a lose for the fcc. this is by far and away a win. i find is surprising we've seen quite a number of people saying this is a problem. this is in many respects from people who wanted for a long time to go after reclassifying broadband providers, this is that opportunity. what, however--there is

something that is different about this. in many ways from that neutrality base is a stalemate. it's been going on for more than a decade and we're an at en pass. there is no further we can take this. but what i think that the shift that we will see is that it will move away from a regime that sort of says, well, the congresswoman talked about a level playing field, but what this means if we want to talk about a level playing field we have to talk just about the ips, but the operating systems of the hand sets, and look at the websites, the platforms. it's not just about the access to the internet, but what happens when you get on a particular platform and what's going on there. if we embrace this idea of open internet it needs to apply to the valley chain not just one particular actor. that has been the problem heretofore. >> what did you make of

yesterday's decision? >> i appreciate the congresswoman's efforts to make the best of a bad situation, but i think for the federal communications commission there is no question this was a major, major loss. the court obliterated the rules, rules that i thought were too weak in many ways. and has sent it back to the fcc but opens up internet use tours a lot of problems. companies like at&t, verizon, time warner cable without these rules in place are free to block websites that they don't like. they're free to interfere with with web traffic, speed up or slow down traffic based on who pays them the most or really just about any other reason. i think it's a very dangerous decision in that it leaves the federal communications commission who are supposed to be looking out for internet users unable to oversee the communications networks of the 21st century. >> ly rejecting the way the fcc made the rules, not their ability, not their reasoning for why it was important to have

rules, didn't they just knock it back into their court and say, come back with another argument, give us a better reason why we should allow you to do this. >> i think that's absolutely right, ray, and that's important. the court did not say that net neutrality was a bad idea or policy. they just said this isn't the way the fcc should have done it. a lot of us have been saying that for a long time and are now urging the fcc to look at the path that the court lays out that says, if you need to look at these broadband transmission services, you need to regulate them under the right part of the law. the whole reason we're in this mess is because the fcc itself abdicated it. they gave it up during the bush administration. we've urged the obama administration to restore or reclassify broadband and reassert their authority over broadband transmission networks. that's the next stage, if the fcc will take the necessary

action to make sure that they have that authority to protec it users. it doesn't mean regulating the internet. putting these services under the law where they belong will keep the fcc further away from content creators. that's what we want. we want the fcc paying attention to these monopolies and the pipes that go into our homes and make sure those who control the pipes are the gate keepers can't interfere with the content running over the pipes. >> is craig aaron is right? the fcc gave up some of its rule-making power in this area? >> yes, i think they put themselves into a difficult position. and i think he's exactly right, you know, they have it within their power to reclassify broadband traffic. but at the same time the court did give the fcc quite a bit more power than i think a lot of people is had expected them to. and you know, it's going to be interesting to see, this is why i don't think so the fcc would

appeal the decision because i think, you know, they might be quite happy with the amount of power they're now given, and they can extend that into a lot of other areas. i'm not sure what they'll do on that. getting more to the question of what this means for consumers. this does not necessarily mean that a consumer is going to pay more, but if you're charging the companies that get onto the internet a fee to do that, you run the potential for the internet to look very different than it does today, and it might look more like your cable tv system, where there are certain channels you can access and others channels that you can't. i think that really is a consumer is what scares me. >> when we come back after this short break we'll talk about how the internet may change in the new future that everyone is talking about. will it become more like cable television, more of the pick and

choose cable universe. this is "inside story."

>> welcome back to "inside story." i'm ray suarez. we're talking about the future of the internet and your access to the fast lane. the movies, games or just browsing. my guests, maggie rearden, and maggie just before the break you were telling us the net may change from this ruling. who was waiting on the sidelines

so they know how to move forward? >> i think you've got the broadband companies that for a long time want to come up with different revenue streams, and i think that this decision, you know, what they want is not just to be able to charge you and me and their actual customers more money for their services. they would love to be able to do that, and they would do that now. but what they really want is new revenue streams. they want to be able to charge netflix. they want to charge amazon and google. if you look back at this whole debate that's what this is all about. it's not necessarily that customers will be charged for the fast lane but you'll charge netflix for the fast lane. what does that to 'do to a new start up that is trying to provide a similar service or what does it do to my access as a consumer? will i not get as good of a quality service from something

other than netflix or maybe netflix pays and amazon doesn't. i think that's where the real concern is. >> roslyn layton, you heard those possibilities. >> sure. >> what are the interests of the big providers? who were behind this decision. they wanted this outcome. they got it. now what are they going to be able to do? >> i think what is interesting here net neutrality is a conservative argument. it sort of says the internet is this way, and we want to make a law so it will always stay this way. we don't want it to evolve and change. the fact of the matter is innovation and technology is about change. and so for example if we look at the internet of the dial-up days would we want that same internet day? as congresswoman eshoo said, we had a $1.2 trillion investment. it made it so wonderful, it made silicon valley the world hotbed

of innovation. i think that talking a lot about some of these negatives, but let's look at some of the positives. >> that's what i'm trying to get you to do. you have something like at&t in the iphone. these two parties came together and said we're going to launch this iphone in the american market. the interesting thing was that at&t subsidized the cost of the phone so the american public could get the phone at a low cost. they had to use their own money to do that. they paid apple for every apple for every single phone. could we imagine the world without iphone? net neutrality taken by definition would not allow those partnerships. it said if there are is exclusive agreement--quickly, if you can charge netflix more, how does that effect me at home doing what i'm doing. >> there is no impact to you

whatsoever. if you're a netflix customer you might have a better experience. the point is if i'm not a netflix customers why should i pay for to you see netflix. >> i look forward to the day that these companies will be offering rebates for when you don't hit your data cap, that hasn't happened yet. here's the problem, we're paying our $50, $60, $70 a month to access the internet. i pay verizon because i want to use netflix, youtube and log on to al jazeera, whatever i decide to do. it's not up to them what i do with that bandwidth because i'm paying them for the service. i don't think they should have a say. i don't think they should dictate what they're telling the investors, the court and everybody but the applications is that--the politicians is that's what they want to do. they want discriminate and get paid again. >> isn't this falling on the companies, the entity pumping

content on the web rather than you at home trying to consume it. >> ray. >> they're paying to get that content to the web. they pay to the points where it links up to the providers. it doesn't make sense that there should be an extra charge. and guess who will pay that extra charge ultimately, it will be me. if netflix goes up 252% that shows up in my wallet. these companies instead of investing in their networks they're profiting from the scarcity. in the end, i'm going to end up paying any way when all i want is this amazing internet i've always had where i can log on and find what i want. these are vastly, vastly profitable companies. they say the cable companies make 90% profit margins, they can forward to invest. >> maggie, quickly. >> yes, i was going to say, ray, there could be some benefits here for consumers, i think that

should not be understated. yes, when i watch netflix sometimes i get a lot of buffering, and it stinks. would i like it if netflix paid a little extra and i got a better experience. sure. the problem is does that limit the choices over all in terms of what i can access? what i stated before, you know, we don't want to wake up ten years from now and say, what the heck happened to my internet experience. i used to be able to find whatever i wanted. now i'm only limited to this and that, and it looks a lot like cable. >> maggie, thanks. roslyn, craig, thanks to you both, as well. that brings us to the end of this edition of "inside story." thanks for being with us. in washington, i'm ray suarez.

i could've chosen better underwear. are you prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice? >> you can do anything except for politics. >> when you kind of imagine what a nuclear disaster would look like, it's something like this. so how long have you been coming and getting pedicures for? >> you gotta take care of these bad boys. >> don't worry mum, everything's cool.