In regards to discussing the FCC’s recent suggestion for rewriting its Net neutrality rules, everyone must take a deep breath, slow down, and check their facts, based on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, whose bureau appears to really have a talent for accidentally exciting the people over its planned policy strategies.

Sites were ablaze with headlines about the “Demise of Net neutrality” and claims that the FCC was offering its acceptance to broadband suppliers who wish to create so called fast lanes online. Regular air travelers took to Internet sites and the media to whine that they did not need to sit next to a passenger that was jabbering on transcontinental flights. To quiet the people, the chairman was made to broker a deal together with the Department of Transportation, which has set rules that could prohibit in flight calls.

Like with the misinterpretation over the in flight mobile phone ban, of what the FCC is really proposing when it comes to Net neutrality, the reality is much less sensational than what’s been reported. In a blog post on Thursday, Wheeler attempted to clear up the mistake. And more clarification was offered by his staff on a press- conference call to reporters.

Wheeler said the FCC is just attempting to reestablish the 2010 rules that the latest court ruling in January struck down and that the FCC adopted.

The chairman isn’t proposing new rules that will replace the ones the FCC embraced. However he said he’ll make an effort to reinforce these rules resist legal challenges, in addition to to make sure they protect consumers and entrepreneurs.

But this time, Wheeler believes the bureau will get it right. In the national Court of Appeals decision in January, the justices concurred that the FCC has the power to control the receptivity of the Web. But they didn’t concur on the legal foundation of the FCC for creating those rules. As well as the court also supplied a sort of pattern that was legal for the bureau to use in crafting these new rules.

A huge mistake
Critics say its position has altered and is welcoming broadband suppliers to create so called fast lanes they could sell to the highest bidders. Consumer advocates worry such offers from broadband suppliers would likewise mean that services which did not pay for precedence would be relegated to the Internet resulting in inferior experiences for their customers, slow lanes.

The other worry is the fact that if Amazon or Netflix is paying for the fast lane, they’re going to pass those costs onto customers, and consumers, who are paying for higher- speed will pay more for specific service subscriptions.

I can not say one way or another even if this scenario did play out whether it would hurt consumers or if these anxieties would play out. One could readily claim that customers of streaming-video services might value better quality of service. This would probably mean better and less cushioning -quality video during peak times of Internet use. It may even be readily claimed that services like Amazon and Netflix are raising prices on their services, and will probably continue to do so, no matter whether they pay for priority access on broadband networks.

“The Court of Appeals made it clear that the FCC could prevent dangerous actions if it were discovered to not be ‘commercially realistic,'” he said. And he went on to clarify that “even Title II regulation (which many have sought and which stays a clear choice) only prohibits ‘unfair and unreasonable discrimination.'”

Wheeler stated that the FCC is proposing rules which will establish a high bar for what’s considered “commercially practical.” And he considers that by simply defining what types of network discrimination is okay and what practices aren’t will protect consumers and entrepreneurs and their accessibility to an Internet that is open.

“The claim that it’ll lead to anti-competitive price increases for consumers is, in addition, unfounded,” he said. “That’s just what the ‘commercially excessive’ evaluation will shield against: damage to competition and consumers coming from violent marketplace action.”

Up to now the FCC hasn’t said how it defines what’s not and what’s realistic. The FCC may also ask how this provision ought to be applied to wireless networks.

“The FCC needs to offer a chance for the general public to comment before decisions are made,” the spokesman said. “The notion would be to inquire first and answer those particular questions after once we have collected more info. That is the responsible approach to get this done.”