The "hybrid" net neutrality plan proposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to raise further arguments in the courtroom.

The emerging plan looks to provide the FCC with additional authority to monitor and regulate all traffic passing through networks of broadband Internet.

Advocates of net neutrality, who are pushing forward the notion that all traffic over the Internet should receive equal treatment, disapprove of the plan.

The primary reason net neutrality advocates dislike the proposal is because the plan does not set forth a clear rule banning ISPs from forging agreements with content providers, who in turn want to get ahead of the competition and make sure their websites are delivered to users faster than others.

The problem with these deals is that they could lead to two tiers within the Internet: one for faster lanes and the other for slower lanes, depending on the content being accessed, a divide that the user has no control over.

Broadband Internet companies are also against the plan because it would greatly increase the ability of the FCC to regulate them. If the plan is approved and implemented, a portion of the business of companies would become listed under the telecommunications law, Title II, which governs over public utilities. These companies would prefer to have more freedom in their business with the light regulations for information services.

The proposed "hybrid" plan, which is being developed by Tom Wheeler, FCC chairman, will classify broadband into two separate services. The first component is the retail service, which is where users will pay broadband companies to gain access to the Internet. The second component is the back end, where broadband companies acquire content to be distributed.

The FCC will then list the back end service under telecommunications, which will provide the agency with more power to oversee an deals being made between broadband companies and content providers.

The FCC, instead of banning such deals between broadband companies and content providers, will place the burden on broadband companies to prove to users that the deals struck will not harm competition or the users.

"This Frankenstein proposal is no treat for Internet users, and they shouldn't be tricked. No matter how you dress it up, any rules that don't clearly restore the agency's authority and prevent specialized fast lanes and paid prioritization aren't real Net Neutrality," said Free Press CEO Craig Aaron.

Many supporters of net neutrality think that the proposal is very complicated. They prefer to just have broadband Internet classified as a public utility so that the FCC would have more power to protect users and prevent large companies from monopolizing the service.

ⓒ 2021 All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.