Internet activists are claiming that the end is near for the web as we know it, but the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to allow Internet fast lanes is not a sign of the digital apocalypse.

Credit -  infocux Technologies
Credit – infocux Technologies

“Net neutrality is not an either or situation, and that’s the problem with all of the news articles that have been coming out lately that it is either a free internet or a closed internet,” said Dana Frix, a telecommunications lawyer who practice includes FCC regulatory issues, in regards to Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal to allow service providers to charge sites extra to have their content load faster online.

Shortly after Wednesday’s news, there was outrage about how this is a complete reversal of the FCC’s position on net neutrality, and that it’s discriminatory and anti-competitive. Not everyone, however, agrees.

“First, this proposal is a change in policy for the Democrats on the Commission.  It is not, however, as dramatic a change as some opponents have asserted,” said telecommunications attorney Steven Augustino. ” The FCC still is asserting authority over broadband internet service providers, and intends to enforce the disclosure rule and the prohibition on blocking of traffic.”

In a blog post published on the FCC’s website, Wheeler defended the proposal and that it does not undermine the current Open Internet rules. Internet service providers will still not be able to block legal websites and must be transparent about their own regulatory policies.

The worries that the Internet will be destabilized come from the D.C. District Court of Appeal’s ruling against the FCC in January, which was incorrectly viewed as a rejection of the FCC’s authority to regulate the Internet.

“What the Court of Appeals said was that it did not oppose the rules but the means by which the FCC got to them. It did not say that net neutrality rules are inherently right or wrong. It simply said that it was an illegitimate process,” said Frix. “But by and large [the proposal] says the same thing that the old rules did. If you engage in behavior that is designed to limit people, then the FCC will look into it.”

Even though the general rules governing the Internet will remain, Wheeler’s proposal does come with an amount of change.

“Net neutrality regulations ought to be something that says there is a great deal of room here for market players to experiment,” said Frix.

He suggested that allowing Internet service providers to charge content providers and websites (like Amazon and Netflix) for better access may help relieve Internet congestion and increase their capital investments.

Augustino held similar sentiments, but pointed out that no one should be getting too excited – or worried – anytime soon.

“I see the Chairman’s announcement as opening the door to more agreements between broadband providers and edge providers.  There will be considerable uncertainty for a while, as the FCC considers case-by-case analyses of these arrangements,” said Augustino.

The FCC is scheduled to discuss the proposal on May 15, but there is no guarantee of approval.

“The proposal still would require agreement by a majority of the Commission in order to become a final rule.  Interestingly, depending upon exactly what the proposal says, the Chairman may have more difficulty getting the Democratic commissioners to agree,” said Augustino. ” I don’t see him joining a majority with the Republican commissioners to vote over the dissents of the Democrats, so the core of what is adopted will have to be palatable to all three Democrats.  That could lead to significant but less high profile changes in the language that is used to describe the policy.”