Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings. 
 
 / Updated 
 
 The battle over net neutrality is expected to reach a crucial milestone on Thursday as the FCC votes on whether the Internet should be regulated like a public utility. 
 
 The proposal unveiled earlier this month by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler is expected to pass. It treats broadband providers as "common carriers" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, like gas or electricity companies, instead of "information services," like Google or Facebook. The common carrier designation would give the FCC the authority to regulate Internet service providers (ISPs) to prohibit "fast lanes" that would grant faster access to companies that pay for the privilege. 
 
 It's a win for open Internet activists, but for the average consumer, it's not clear exactly what will change. 
 
 "The day after the FCC order, your broadband will still cost the same amount as it did before," said Kevin Werbach, a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 
 
 "Since 2010, there has been a set of rules, but it was unclear if those rules were enforceable," he said. "All this ruling means is that there will be FCC jurisdiction to examine practices and hear complaints." 
 
 Who will come out on top? 
 
 The debate over net neutrality has often been cast as pitting ISPs like Verizon against Web companies like Google and Netflix. (Comcast, another major Internet service provider, is the parent company of NBCUniversal and NBC News.) 
 
 In reality, it's not easy to divide companies into winners and losers, since it's not clear exactly what actions the FCC will take. 
 
 John Mayo, executive director of Georgetown University's Center for Business and Public Policy, thinks that "public utility-style regulations" could make life harder for cable and Internet companies. 
 
 "If you're a provider of the Internet infrastructure, this measure is going to create a tremendous amount of chaos," he told NBC News. "The natural response of companies faced with legal and regulatory uncertainties is to pull in and reduce risk-taking." 
 
 Meanwhile, Netflix, which campaigned hard for net neutrality rules, should feel reassured that it won't be charged more for the bandwidth it takes up. (Last year, research firm Sandvine estimated that Netflix streaming was responsible for nearly 35 percent of peak Internet traffic in the United States). 
 
 Net neutrality rules likes the ones expected to pass on Thursday have been supported in the past by Google, Facebook and Amazon, as well as smaller companies like Etsy and Reddit. 
 
 The FCC received 3.7 million comments from the public on net neutrality. At one point, 99 percent of them were in favor of regulations like the ones that are expected to pass, according to a study from the Sunlight Foundation, an open government advocacy organization. 
 
 The road ahead 
 
 Some Republicans in Congress have remained defiant, characterizing the proposal as government overreach. 
 
 It's possible that the Republican-controlled Congress could pass legislation that undermines the expected FCC ruling, but it's not clear that such a law could avoid President Barack Obama's veto pen. 
 
 In November, Obama pushed the FCC to institute stronger net neutrality rules, saying that Internet service providers shouldn't be able to "pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas." 
 
 Regardless of legislative action, broadband providers could fight back with their lawyers. 
 
 "This set of rules will undoubtedly be challenged," Werbach said. 
 
 In the end, the new FCC rules mostly affect what could happen, not what is happening now, Werbach said, meaning that broadband providers and Web companies could see very little change in how they do business in the short term. 
 
 "Both sides in this debate tend to exaggerate this as an all-or-nothing decision that will transform the Internet." ||||| The Federal Communications Commission today voted to enforce net neutrality rules that prevent Internet providers—including cellular carriers—from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment. 
 
 “This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech.” 
 
 The most controversial part of the FCC's decision reclassifies fixed and mobile broadband as a telecommunications service, with providers to be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This decision brings Internet service under the same type of regulatory regime faced by wireline telephone service and mobile voice, though the FCC is forbearing from stricter utility-style rules that it could also apply under Title II. 
 
 The decision comes after a year of intense public interest, with the FCC receiving four million public comments from companies, trade associations, advocacy groups, and individuals. President Obama weighed in as well, asking the FCC to adopt the rules using Title II as the legal underpinning. The vote was 3-2, with Democrats voting in favor and Republicans against. 
 
 Chairman Tom Wheeler said that broadband providers have the technical ability and financial incentive to impose restrictions on the Internet. Wheeler said further: 
 
 The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The Internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The Internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from four million Americans has demonstrated, the Internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules. This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think. 
 
 Wheeler also said putting rules in place will give network operators the certainty they need to keep investing. 
 
 In May 2014, the Wheeler-led commission proposed rules that relied on weaker authority and did not ban paid fast lanes. Wheeler eventually changed his mind, leading to today's vote. 
 
 Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, the longest-tenured commissioner and someone who supported Title II five years ago, said the net neutrality order does not address only theoretical harms. 
 
 "This is more than a theoretical exercise," she said. "Providers here in the United States have, in fact, blocked applications on mobile devices, which not only hampers free expression, it also restricts innovation by allowing companies, not the consumer, to pick winners and losers." 
 
 Clyburn convinced Chairman Tom Wheeler to remove language that she believed was problematic. 
 
 “We worked closely with the chairman's office to strike an appropriate balance and, yes, it is true that significant changes were made at my office's request, including the elimination of the sender side classification, but I firmly believe that these edits have strengthened this item," she said. 
 
 Clyburn, Google, and consumer advocacy groups told Wheeler that language classifying a business relationship between ISPs and Web services as a common carrier service could give ISPs grounds to charge online content providers for access to their networks. This language was removed, but service that ISPs offer to home and business Internet users was still reclassified as a common carrier service. FCC officials believe this classification alone gives them power to enforce net neutrality rules and oversee network interconnection disputes that affect consumers. Further Reading Wireless net neutrality puts Verizon and rivals on equal footing 
 
 Internet service providers such as Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon lobbied heavily against the Title II decision and could sue to overturn the rules. But Wheeler believes Title II puts the FCC on stronger legal ground. The FCC previously passed net neutrality rules in 2010, relying on some of its weaker authority, but the rules were largely overturned after a Verizon lawsuit. 
 
 By winning that case, Verizon inadvertently opened itself and all other Internet providers up to even stricter rules. The new rules go beyond the net neutrality rules passed in 2010. And this time around, the FCC is applying the rules equally to fixed and mobile broadband, whereas its 2010 rules went easier on Verizon's wireless subsidiary and other cellular companies. 
 
 The core net neutrality provisions are bans on blocking and throttling traffic, a ban on paid prioritization, and a requirement to disclose network management practices. Broadband providers will not be allowed to block or degrade access to legal content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices or favor some traffic over others in exchange for payment. There are exceptions for "reasonable network management" and certain data services that don't use the "public Internet." Those include heart monitoring services and the Voice over Internet Protocol services offered by home Internet providers. 
 
 The reasonable network management exception applies to blocking and throttling but not paid prioritization. 
 
 There are additional Title II requirements that go beyond previous net neutrality rules. There are provisions to investigate consumer complaints, privacy rules, and protections for people with disabilities. Content providers and network operators who connect to ISPs' networks can complain to the FCC about "unjust and unreasonable" interconnection rates and practices. There are also rules guaranteeing ISPs access to poles and other infrastructure controlled by utilities, potentially making it easier to enter new markets. (Republican commissioner Ajit Pai argued that the new rules will actually make cable companies and new providers like Google Fiber pay higher fees for access to utility poles.) Further Reading Making the Internet a utility—what’s the worst that could happen? 
 
 There is also a "general conduct" standard designed to judge whether future activity not contemplated by the order harms end users or online content providers. 
 
 The FCC could have tried to use Title II to require last-mile unbundling, in which Internet providers would have to sell wholesale access to their networks. This would allow new competitors to enter local markets without having to build their own infrastructure. But the FCC decided not to impose unbundling. As such, the vote does little to boost Internet service competition in cities or towns. But it's an attempt to prevent incumbent ISPs from using their market dominance to harm online providers, including those who offer services that compete against the broadband providers' voice and video products. 
 
 What’s next: Lawsuits and Congressional intervention 
 
 Opponents claim the order will bring new taxes and fees on broadband consumers and onerous procedural requirements for providers. But Wheeler says the order will not authorize any new taxes or fees or impose any "burdensome administrative filing requirements or accounting standards." 
 
 Broadband providers claim the rules amount to rate regulation because consumers could bring complaints about their bills to the commission, and the FCC could decide that a particular price is unreasonable. But the FCC would not determine any pricing in advance of specific complaints. Even without Title II, the FCC has authority under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act to impose price caps on broadband, but it hasn't done so. Further Reading Don’t call them “utility” rules: The FCC’s net neutrality regime, explained 
 
 “The order retains core authority to prevent unjust and unreasonable practices, protect consumers, and support universal service,” Melissa Kirkel, an FCC attorney advisor, told commissioners. “The order makes clear that broadband providers will not be subject to utility-style regulation. This means no unbundling, tariffs, or other forms of rate regulation, and the order does not require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund, nor does it impose, suggest, or authorize any new taxes or fees.” 
 
 Today's order could face both legal challenges and action from Congress. Republicans have proposed legislation that would eliminate Title II restrictions for broadband providers and vowed that the FCC vote is just the beginning of the debate. 
 
 Although many ISPs publicly oppose the new rules, the industry is by no means united against the FCC. Sprint and T-Mobile US have each said the FCC's proposal would not hurt their business. And while a good number of small broadband providers oppose the imposition of Title II rules, others support Wheeler. The NTCA Rural Broadband Association, which represents rural ISPs, said yesterday that it supports applying Title II to broadband networks. 
 
 Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, spoke to the commission via video. He credited the openness of the Internet with allowing him to create the Web 25 years ago without having to ask "permission." 
 
 Republican Commissioner Michael O'Rielly dissented, accusing Wheeler of bowing to Obama's wishes. O'Rielly's written statement said: 
 
 Let me start by issuing apologies. First, I am just sick about what Chairman Wheeler was forced to go through during this process. It was disgraceful to have the Administration overtake the commission’s rulemaking process and dictate an outcome for pure political purposes. It is so disturbing to know that those efforts were about illegitimately pushing a larger political cause mostly unrelated to technology. This administration went so far beyond what has ever been attempted, and its inappropriate interference in the commission’s activities will forever change this institution. Additionally, I am sorry to the staff members that were forced to prepare a half-baked, illogical, internally inconsistent, and indefensible document. For an institution that prides itself on quality of work and legal and technical expertise, this document is anything but. I guess that an artificial deadline to meet the radical protestors’ demands means that it is more likely that this item gets overturned by the courts because the work and thoughtful analysis needed to actually defend this completely flawed agenda is not included in the text. Today, a majority of the commission attempts to usurp the authority of Congress by re-writing the Communications Act to suit its own “values” and political ends. 
 
 O'Rielly did not recite the first two paragraphs while reading his statement during the meeting. 
 
 Some entrepreneurs spoke in front of the commission. Veena Sud, a writer, director, and producer who developed the TV show The Killing, said the show "survived two near deaths" because of the Open Internet. "When AMC canceled us yet again, Netflix took over the show in its entirety and we were able to end the series as it was intended, all because the Internet was opened up to competition and widened the playing field." 
 
 FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said, "We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. We cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online, and we do not need blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization schemes that undermine the Internet as we know it." 
 
 Pai said the FCC is replacing Internet freedom with "government control." The FCC is seizing unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct and determine what service plans are available to consumers, he said. 
 
 "The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve," he said. 
 
 Pai claimed that an Internet provider could "find itself in the FCC's crosshairs" if it doesn't want to offer unlimited data plans. The FCC's order does not actually ban data caps; instead, the FCC is claiming authority to intervene when companies use data caps to harm competitors or customers. 
 
 Pai said the FCC is only deferring a decision on new Universal Service fees for broadband rather than ruling them out entirely. Universal Service fees, which fund telecommunications projects in rural and under-served regions, currently apply to phone bills but not Internet service. 
 
 The full net neutrality order has not been published yet. The FCC's majority is required to include the Republicans' dissents in the order and "be responsive to those dissents," Wheeler said. The order will go on the FCC's website after that process. The rules will go into effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, with one small exception. Enhancements to the transparency rule must undergo an additional review by the Office of Management and Budget to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. ||||| James Martin/CNET 
 
 It's official. The Internet will now be regulated as a public utility. 
 
 After months of anticipation and weeks of frenzied last-minute lobbying on both sides of the political aisle, the Federal Communications Commission has adopted Net neutrality regulations based on a new definition of broadband that will let the government regulate Internet infrastructure as it could the old telephone network. 
 
 At the FCC's monthly meeting Thursday the agency reinstated open Internet rules in a 3-2 vote split along party lines. The new rules replace regulations that had been thrown out by a federal court last year. 
 
 The new rules prohibit broadband providers from blocking or slowing down traffic on wired and wireless networks. They also ban Internet service providers from offering paid priority services that could allow them to charge content companies, such as Netflix, fees to access Internet "fast lanes" to reach customers more quickly when networks are congested. 
 
 The crux of the new rules is the FCC's reclassification of broadband as a Title II telecommunications service under the 1934 Communications Act. Applying the Title II moniker to broadband has the potential to radically change how the Internet is governed, giving the FCC unprecedented authority. The provision originally gave the agency the power to set rates and enforce the "common carrier" principle, or the idea that every customer gets equal access to the network. Now this idea will be applied to broadband networks to prevent Internet service providers from favoring one bit of data over another. 
 
 FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the controversial move to reclassify broadband is necessary to ensure that the rules will stand up to future court challenges. The FCC has lost two previous legal challenges when defending its Net neutrality rules. 
 
 But the FCC's move to apply Title II to broadband has been viewed by cable operators, wireless providers and phone companies as a "nuclear option," with potentially devastating fallout from unintended consequences. 
 
 These companies argue that applying outdated regulation to the broadband industry will stifle innovation by hurting investment opportunities in networks. It could also allow the government to impose new taxes and tariffs, which would increase consumer bills. And they say it could even allow the government to force network operators to share their infrastructure with competitors. 
 
 Wheeler has said these fears are overblown. The agency is ignoring aspects of the Title II regulation that would apply most of the onerous requirements. 
 
 He said critics have painted his proposal as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." 
 
 His response to that? "Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept: openness." Reactions to the passage of the FCC's new rules and the reclassification of broadband came quick from the industry. Michael Powell, a former FCC chairman and head of the cable industry's lobbying organization, said the FCC has gone too far in its intent to secure an open Internet for all consumers and entrepreneurs by reclassifying broadband. 
 
 "The FCC has taken the overwhelming support for an open Internet and pried open the door to heavy-handed government regulation in a space celebrated for its free enterprise," he said in a statement. "The Commission has breathed new life into the decayed telephone regulatory model and applied it to the most dynamic, free-wheeling and innovative platform in history." 
 
 AT&T's top legislative executive, Jim Cicconi, echoed these sentiments in a blog post. 
 
 "At AT&T, we've supported open Internet principles since they were first enunciated, and we continue to abide by them strictly, and voluntarily, even today," he said. "What doesn't make sense, and has never made sense, is to take a regulatory framework developed for Ma Bell in the 1930s and make her great grandchildren, with technologies and options undreamed of 80 years ago, live under it." 
 
 Now playing: Watch this: What the FCC Net neutrality rules will mean for Internet... 
 
 Political lines drawn 
 
 Thursday's FCC vote was split along party lines with the three Democrats -- led by Wheeler, who was appointed by President Barack Obama -- on the five-person commission supporting the proposal and the two Republicans opposing it. 
 
 The debate over Net neutrality, and more specifically the fight to reclassify broadband as Title II service, has turned into another bitter partisan battle in Washington. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called the new regulation "Obamacare for the Internet." 
 
 Republicans have also accused the White House of skewing the independence of the FCC, with some seeking an investigation into Obama's role in shaping the rules, since Wheeler's initial proposal, made public in May, did not include reclassifying broadband traffic. 
 
 After a public outcry, including a 13-minute rant by HBO comedian John Oliver who implored viewers to flood the FCC with comments, Wheeler said he changed his mind and became convinced the only way to protect the open Internet was to change the definition of broadband. 
 
 But Republicans say Wheeler was likely influenced by a statement issued by Obama in November that urged the FCC to reclassify broadband. Obama said in a nearly 1,100-word statement that there should be no toll takers between you and your Internet content, and he said Title II was the only way to ensure the Internet remained open to everyone. 
 
 Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai highlighted the change in position in his statement during the FCC's meeting Thursday, asking why Wheeler changed his mind. 
 
 "Is it because we now have evidence that the Internet is broken?" he said. " No. We are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason alone. President Obama told us to do so." 
 
 Republicans in Congress have also drafted legislation that would write the Net neutrality rules into law but strip the FCC of its authority. But even though the Republicans control both the House and the Senate, they don't have the votes to override an executive veto from Obama. As a result, the party's leadership conceded earlier this week that it could not pass a Net neutrality bill without support from Democrats. 
 
 The fight continues 
 
 The vote today ends the most recent chapter of the Net neutrality battle, but it's by no means the end of the story. 
 
 After the rules are published in the Federal Register, likely within the next few weeks, broadband providers are sure to file suit against the FCC. AT&T has already suggested it will sue. And it's likely that other broadband providers will join the company. 
 
 FCC officials have said they anticipated such challenges, and they're confident the rules will stand up to legal changes. 
 
 This story is part of a CNET special report looking at the challenges of Net neutrality, and what rules -- if any -- are needed to fuel innovation and protect US consumers.
– The Federal Communications Commission will vote on net neutrality today, after lengthy debate. Though the topic seems destined for the courts, the FCC's decision "is going to be a benchmark," a researcher tells USA Today. The board is expected to approve chairman Tom Wheeler's guidelines to regulate the Internet like a utility, as President Obama suggested. His proposal also labels broadband providers as "common carriers" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which means the FCC could prohibit paid prioritization for "fast lanes," NBC News reports. What does that mean for you? "All this ruling means is that there will be FCC jurisdiction to examine practices and hear complaints," a legal professor explains. He bats down claims that this is "an all-or-nothing decision that will transform the Internet," suggesting much is still to be determined. "Your broadband will still cost the same amount as it did before." Essentially Wheeler's rules would mean Internet service providers must treat all traffic equally, which is why Netflix—which claims almost 35% of peak traffic in the US—supports the move. It can't be charged more for the bandwidth it uses. Companies like Etsy, Kickstarter, Tumblr, and Vimeo support rules similar to Wheeler's. In the past, so did Google. But nearly a decade after Google and Facebook first pushed for new rules, the search giant has urged the FCC to draft rules boosting investment in broadband Internet networks, as have net neutrality opponents AT&T and Comcast, the Wall Street Journal reports. An expert predicts the "public utility-style regulations" will "create a tremendous amount of chaos" for cable and Internet companies, particularly when it comes to addressing congestion. They would have to ensure their practices of freeing up bandwidth are "reasonable," NPR reports. The rules also include what's called "zero-rating," which is when an app or group of apps—for example T-Mobile's Music Freedom plan—isn't counted against a user's data cap. Sounds like a bonus, right? "That distorts competition," says one expert. Republicans generally consider Wheeler's rules a government power grab. Congress could respond with legislation that undercuts Wheeler's guidelines, but Obama would likely veto.