some of the most important people in the business of finance world at the world economic forum in switzerland. you can see him all week long on real money on al jazeera america at 7:00. 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. >> you got all that? there won't an quiz later in the program. the d.c. court of appeals ruling drew strong reactions. lauding the ruling as a victory for the free market. democrats called expressed concerns it could limit the agency's power to preserve net neutrality. joining us now to discuss the issue is congresswoman eshoo. she represents california's 18th congressional district. good to have you with us. the ruling was 2-s 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. that is to public good, to serve the public. 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

square, so to speak, and they lost. the court said that the fcc clearly has the authority to address broad want 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's throughout 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 counter 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 a important one for the american people. i don't think that the congress, especially the makeup 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 action. and i think that they will. >> so in your view the fcc can go back and maybe 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 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've given them a road map of how to go forward and do it. and why is it important, ray? it is 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. so these are very, very important principles. >> congresswoman, i'm glad you used that phrase "open and

free," it's the same one that the president used. the big providers say the internet will take a lot of investment in the coming years, and it may be open and free, but somebody has got 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 the congress that over$1.2 trillion has been invested in this very important infrastructure. we're lagging in other areas of infrastructure of our country, but this is 21st century infrastructure. it effects 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 districts 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 and the public square, we have a responsibility members of congress, to make sure that there is an even playing field. no consumer, excuse the expression, screwed by anyone simply because they have a corporate interest. do i think the interest can be combined, the public interest and the private sector? of course. they have, 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, the free, open, accessible internet, and that structure would not be

admired around the world. i don't fall for that premise that you just described. >> representative anna eshoo with us. thank you, representative. >> thank you. >> we'll take a short break and follow the money and find out whether the fast internet means you'll pay more. this is "inside story." al jazeera america. we understand that every news story begins and ends with people. >> the efforts are focused on rescuing stranded residents. >> we pursue that story beyond the headline, pass the spokesperson, to the streets. >> thousands of riot police deployed across the capital. >> we put all of our global resources behind every story.

>> it is a scene of utter devastation. >> and follow it no matter where it leads - all the way to you. al jazeera america, take a new look at news.

real reporting that brings you the world. >> this is a pretty dangerous trip. >> security in beirut is tight. >> more reporters. >> they don't have the resources to take the fight to al shabaab. >> more bureaus, more stories. >> this is where the typhoon came ashore. giving you a real global perspective like no other can. >> al jazeera, nairobi. >> on the turkey-syria border. >> venezuela. >> beijing. >> kabul. >> hong kong. >> ukraine. >> the artic. real reporting from around the world. this is what we do. al jazeera america. 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 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. 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 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 important to have rules, didn't they just knock it back into their court and say, 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 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 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." >> al jazeera america is a straight-forward news channel. >> its the most exciting thing to happen to american journalism in decades. >> we believe in digging deep. >> its unbiased, fact-based, in-depth journalism.

>> you give them the facts, dispense with the fluff and get straight to the point. >> i'm on the ground every day finding stories that matter to you. >> in new orleans... >> seattle bureau... >> washington... >> detroit... >> chicago... >> nashville... >> los angeles... >> san francisco... >> al jazeera america, take a new look at news. al jazeera america.

>> these two parties came together and said we're going to launch the iphone in the american market. the 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 single phone. now could we imagine a world today without the iphone? the but the fact of the matter is, net neutrality has take wout allow that. >> quickly, roslyn, if you can

charge netflix more because they use a lot of band width. >> yes, 30%. >> how does that affect me at home doing what i'm doing on the web. >> it has no impact to you whatsoever but if you're a netflix customer you may have a better experience. but the point is if i'm not a netflix customer why should i have to pay for you to see netflix. >> here's the problem, we're paying our $50 $60, 70 dollars ,$80 a month to have the internet. i want to be able to watch netflix or watch al jazeera or whatever i decide to do. it's not up to them what i do with the band width because i already pay for the internet. but what they're telling their investors, the court and pretty

much everybody but the politicians is they want to discriminate and get paid again. >> but the entities that are pumping content up on the web rather than you who is trying to consume it. >> they're paying to get that content to the web. they pay for all the points that it links u up to the providers. it doesn't seem to me that there is an extra charge they have to pay. and guess who is going to pay it ultimately is me. if netflix' cost goes up 25% that will show up in my wallet. these companies instead of investing in their networks, they're profiting from the scarcity. they're proposing these special deals that it won't count against my cap or whatever have you where in the end i'll pay any way where all i want is this amazing internet is where i can log on and find what i want. these are vastly profitable companies. cable companies are making 90%

margin, they can pay to invest. >> there could be some benefits here for consumers, that really should not be understated. but yes, when i watch netflix sometimes i get a lot of buffering, and it really 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 overall in terms of what i can access, and i think 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, and now i'm only limited to this and that, and it looks a lot like cable. >> maggie, thanks a lot. roslyn, craig, than thanks to yu 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.

>> welcome to al jazeera america. i'm del walters. these are the stories that we're following for. >> you i have decided to issue an invitation to iran to participate. >> the upcoming syrian peace talks now uncertain after the united nations invites iran to participate over objections. some relief from sanctions on iran as u.s. honors it's nuclear agreement. and reports of last month's