... r50iding on the information super highway, turns out it may have fast and slow lanes. new rules that may mean you have to pay for the quickest ride on "the inside story." >> hello. i am ray sworees. put a plug in a wall socket. an e licktricity powers an appliance. it's the same juice applied to your neighbors in maxes 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-glaze-over term, net neutrality may not make your pulse race but the court's decision may slow down some web traffic. here is how it all happened. >> the fcc has to go back to the drawing board if it wants to keep fast, broadband internet service open to all. a ruling for the district of columbia struck down federal communications commission rules protecting the openness of the internet. it's the latest twist in the battle over net neutrality. >> i remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the internet as it should be: open and free.

>> in 2010, the fcc put rules in place prohibiting broadband providers like verizon and at&t from blocking lawfully content. the rules also prohibited these providers from discriminating against any traffic on the system, meaning all content on the interest net would be treated equally, whether it's movies you stream, the online games you play, or the websites you browse. verizon sued the fcc arguing it did not have the authority from congress to make these rules. while the d.c. court upheld the fcc's authority over broadband services, the court tossed the fcc's rules, saying they were built using a flawed legal argument. at the heart of this debate is what's 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 that all people have access to fundamental services

in that way, the enter 234i9 is line like a highway and the service providers like a bus company. say a bus company that trans ports 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 guaranty no matter if passengers use a lot of internet or just a little, they can all ride the same bus. the court ruled the fcc used the common carrier law as the 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 legal argument, or it may appeal the court decision, or congress can pass a law covering broadband and internet openness. the stakes for all of us are high because in an internet without rules, you might only be

allowed on the bus if you pay to ride with the biggest players in the content industry. you got all that? there won't be a quiz later in the program. the d.c. court of appeals ruling drew strong reactions from congress. republicans lauded the ruling as a victory for the free market. democrats called it a reaffirmation of the fcc's authority while expressing concerns it could limit the agency's power to preserve net neutrality. joining us now to discuss the decision is congresswoman anna eschew ranking democratic member of the house subcommittee on communications and technology. she represents california's 18th congressional district. good to have you with us. the ruling was 2 to 1 but the language was pretty emphatic. where does it leave congress and the fcc moving forward? >> well, i think that the district or the circuit court's

decision is, first of all, a landmark decision, a very, 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. and in this decision, which was -- it was a lawsuit that was brought by verizon. verizon did not want the fcc -- they were challenging that the fcc have any authority whatsoever to regulate in this 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 am 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 make-up of the most especially the house of representatives, will write that, but the fcc does have the authority to address both blocking and anti-discriminatory, and i think that they will. >> so in your view, the fcc can go back and it may be 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 t explained why they rejected those two parts, and 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 enjoin both of those under that rule. so, they have given them a roadmap of how to go forward and

do it. and why is it important, ray? 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 its 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. so these are very, very important principles. >> congresswoman, i am glad you used that phrase, open and free. it's the one the president used. the big providers say the internet's going to take a lot of investment in the coming years, and it may be open and free, but somebody's got to pay

to do that technical upgrade and they think if they pay, they should get the inside lane. why not? >> i am thrilled and i have witnessed since i have come to the congress over $1.2 trillion has been invested in this very important infrastructure. we are 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 placed my congressional district on the map. every one around the world associates themselves with silicon valley, who is there, what we do, what we promote. so, i am 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. so do i think the interests can be combined? the public interest and the private sector? of course. they have. >> that's why they have invested so much. if this was a bad business to go in 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, the free, open, accessible internet and that structure would not be admired around the world. so, i don't fall for that premise that you just described. >> representative, anna eschew joins us from capitol hill.

thank you for being with us? >> it's a pleasure. >> we are going to take a short bre break. up next, we will try to follow the money and find out whether fast internet means you will pay more. this is inside story. like chicken, >> that's good.... >> but it's not... the foamy inovation that's making hardcore meat eaters happy. >> techknow on al jazeera america

the stream is uniquely interactive television. in fact, we depend on you, your ideas, your concerns. >> all these folks are making a whole lot of money. >> you are one of the voices of this show. >> i think you've offended everyone with that kathy. >> hold on, there's some room to offend people, i'm here. >> we have a right to know what's in our food and monsanto do not have the right to hide it from us. >> so join the conversation and make it your own. >> watch the stream. >> and join the conversation online @ajamstream. the internet, today's inside story, joining us for the rest of our conversation on the big ruling on what's called "net new triletety" are in studio, craig aaron, the president and ceo of "free press" a media advocacy group championing affordable enter net access. from new york, maggie rearden from cnet.

she writes the "ask maggie" columned. >> and center for internet communications and technology policy, the vice president of strand consult, which advises mobile phone operators and rosalind leighton, what do you make of what the congress woman just said that it's still within the fcc's ambeit to revisit and reestablish net neutrality? >> well, i actually agree with quite a lot of congresswoman eschew's comments. i think it's fantastic she pointed out $1.2 trillion investment that's been going on since 1996, about $50,000,000,000 a year. actually, she is quite right. this is not at all a lose for the fcc. this is by far and away a win. ty find it quite surprising we have seen a number of people say that this is a problem. this is tulk n many respects for people who have wanted for a long time to go after reclassifying brad band providers, this is definitely that opportunity.

but there is something that's different about this. the net neutrality debate is a stalemate. it's been going more than a decade. we are at an impasse. there is no further that 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 is that if we want to talk about a level playing field, we have to contract not just the isps, the internet service providers. we need to take a look at the practices of the operating systems, of the handsets. we need to look at the websites, the platforms. it's not just about the access to the internet. but it happens when you get on a particular platform and what's going on there. if we embrace this idea, it needs to not just apply to one

actor. >> craig aaron, what did you make of yesterday's decision? >> i appreciate the depression woman's efforts to make the best of a bad situation. 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 actually thought were too weak in many ways, and has sent it back to the fcc but opens up internet users to 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 are free to interfere with web traffic, speed up or slow down traffic based upon who pays them the most or any other reason. i think it's a dangerous decision in that it leaves the federal communications commission who are supposed to look on the 4 users unable to see the communications networks of the 21st century. >> by rejecting the way the fcc made the rules -- not their ability, not their reasoning for

why it was importantas importan rules, didn't they just knock it back into their court and say, come back with a better argument? >> i think that's right, ray. i think that's importantly. the court did not say net neutrality is a bad idea or a bad policy. they just said, this isn't the way the fcc should have done it. and a lot of us have been saying that for a long time and are now urging the fcc to look at the path as the congress woman described, 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 fcc abdicated its authority. they gave it up during the bush administration. we urged the obama administration to restore or reclassify broadband and reassert their thofrt over what are very clearly telecommunications or broadband transmission networks. >> that's going to be the important next stage in the debate is whether the fcc is

going to take the next action to make shire they have the authority though protect internet users. it doesn't mean regulating the internet. putting them where they belong will keep the fcc farther away from content creators. >> that's what we want. we want the fcc paying attention to monopolies, paying attention to the pipes that go into our homes and make sure those who control the pipes who are the gate keepers can't interfere with the content running over those pipes. >>mad maggie rearden, is craig aaron right? did they start writing the court decision a couple of years ago when it gave up some rule-making power in this area? >> yeah. i mean i think they put themselves into a difficult position, and i think he is exactly right, that, you know, they have it within their power to reclassify broadband traffic. they gave the fcc quite a bit more power than i think amount of people had expected them to.

and, you know, i guess going to be interesting to see. this is why i don't think the fcc would actually appeal the decision, because i think, you know, ne might be quite happy with the amount of power they are now given and they can exte extend that into a lot of other areas. i am not sure what they will do on that. but, you know, getting more to the question of what this means for consumers, it doesn't mean a consumer is going to pay more but if you are 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 t.v. system where there are certain channels that you can access and other channels that you can't. and i think that really as a consumer is what scares me. >> when we come back after this short break, we will talk about how the internet may change in th this new future that everybody is talking about. will it become more like cable television, more a pick and

choose communications universe? this is insi"inside story."

♪ welcome back to "north dakota story." i am ray sworees. we are talking about the future of the internet and your access

to the fast lane, movies, games or just plain browsing. my guests are maggie rearden, maggie leighton and craig aaron of "free press." maggie, you were tellings how the web and the things you get on it may change. what was waiting on the sidelines, waiting to see what would happen so they would know how to move forward? >> yeah. i mean i think that you've got the broadband companies that for a long time want to come up with different revenue streams and i think that in the decision, you know, what they want is not just to be able to charge you and me and their actual customers more money for services. they would love to be able to do that and they can do that now, but what they really want is new revenue streeams. 24e79 to be able to change netflix and amazon and google and if you look back at this whole debate. >> that's what this is really

about p it's not necessarily customers will be charged for the fast lane but you will charge netflix for access to the fast lane. what does that do to a new startup trying to provide a similar service, or what does that do, you know, to my access as a consumer, you know. will i not get as good of a quality service from something other than netflix or maybe netflix pays and amazon doesn't and, you know, i think that's where the real concern is. >> well, rosalind leighton, you heard those possibility at this. what are the interests of the big decision? they wanted this outcome. they got it. what are they going to be able to do? >> what i think is interesting is net neutrality is a conservative argument. it says the internet is this way. 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 that invasion, technology is about change and so, for example, if we look at the internet of the dial-up days, would we have wanted to have that same internet today? we have had as congress woman eschew said, we have had a $1.2 trillion investment the hot bed of innovation. so, i think that talking a lot about some of these negatives but let's look at some of the real positives. >> what i am trying to get you to do. >> if you have something like at&t and the iphon, in 2011 these parties said we will launch this iphone in the american market. the interesting thing was that at&t subsidized the cost of the phone so that the american public could get the phone at a low cost. now, they had to use their own money to do that. they paid apple for every single phone. could we imagine a world today

without the iphone? the fact of the matter s net neutrality if taken by it's definition would not lou those kind of partnerships. essentially what it says is there is an agreement and you get to use this environment. >> if you can charge netflix more because they use a lot of band width? >> 30%. >> how does it affect me at home doing what i am doing on the web? >> no impact to you whatsoever. if you are a netflix customer, perhaps you will have a better experience. if i am not, why should i have to pay for you to see netflix. >> craig aaron? >> i look forward to the day that these companies will be offering rebates for when you don't hit your data camp and that hasn't happened yet. here is the problem. we are paying our 50, 60, sent, $80 a month to these companies in order to access the entire internet. i pay verizon in my case because i want to use verizon and netflix and log onto al jazeera

or whatever i decide to do. it's not up to them with what i do with that band width because i am paying them for the service. i don't think they should have a say. i don't think they should be able to dictate and what they are telling their investors, what they are telling the court, what they are telling pretty much everything except for the politicians is that that's what they want to do. they want to discriminate. they want to get paid again. >> isn't the burden falling more heavily on the companies, that are pumping contents onto the west rather than you at home? >> ray -- >> they are paying to get that to the web. they pay to all of the points where it links up with any of these providers. it doesn't make any sense to me there should be an extra charge that they also have to pay and guess who will pay that extra charge ultimately? it will be me that will show up in my wallet. this is the problem. instead of investing in their networks, they are profiting from the scarcity and so they are proposing all of the special deals where it won't count against my cap or what have you,

but in the end, i am going to end up paying anyway when all i want is this amazing internet i have always had where i can log on and find what i want. these are vastly, vastly profitable companies. they say the cable companies are making 90% profit margins on their cable modems. they can afford to invest. >> maggie rearden can quickly. >> i was going to say, ray, there could be some benefits here for consumers. i think that that should not be understated. but yes, when i watch netflix sometimes, i get a lot of buffering. it really stinks and whould i like it if netflix paid a little extra and i got a better season? sure. the problem is, you know, does that limit the choices over all in terms of what i can access? i think that what i stated before, you know, we don't want to wake up 10 years from now and say what the heck happened to my internet experience? i used to be able to find whatever i wanted and now, i am only limited to this and that, and it looks a lot like cable.

>> maggie rearden, thanks a lot. ross lined leighton, craigarian, thanks to you all as well. >> brings us to the ends of this addition of insi"inside story." thanks for being with us. in washington, i am ray suarez. >> from our headquarters in new york, here are the headlines this hour. >> al jazeera america is the only news channel that brings you live news at the top of every hour. >> a deal in the senate may be at hand and just in the nick of time. >> thousands of new yorkers are marching in solidarity. >> we're following multiple developments on syria at this hour. >> every hour from reporters stationed around the world and across the country. >> only on al jazeera america.

this is al jazeera america, live from new york city. i am jonathan betz. after a bitter debate, syria's main opposition group disagrees agrees to attend peace talks. lingering questions about the safety of water in charleston, west virginia as the owner of the company responsible creates another company after filing for bankruptcy. new allegations of dirty politics by the new jersey governor's staff, a may or now says hurricane sandy relief money was held hostage. a drought emergency in california, how it could sour the state's wine industry.