Yesterday the FCC passed new ‘Net Neutrality’ rules along party lines: 3-2.  The full text of the rules haven’t yet been released, but the core proposals have drawn plenty of fire from both sides, and many experts predict different portions will end up in court soon after they take effect at the beginning of next year.

If I understand correctly, the FCC failed to assert that wireless broadband should fall under their jurisdiction and classify Broadband as a communication service, leaving telecoms to their own devices, and making it possible to control what applications you can access on hand-held devices. 

The new rules seem to provide for a two-tiered service for different IPs, and that corporate  heavy-hitters to provide faster access than the second-tier IPs.

Boldprogressives.org:

1: Corporate censorship is allowed on your phone

The rules passed today by Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski absurdly create different corporate censorship rules for wired and wireless Internet, allowing big corporations like Comcast to block websites they don't like on your phone -- a clear failure to fulfill Net Neutrality and put you, the consumer, in control of what you can and can't do online.²

2: Online tollbooths are allowed, destroying innovation

The rules passed today would allow big Internet Service Providers like Verizon and Comcast to charge for access to the "fast lane." Big companies that could afford to pay these fees like Google or Amazon would get their websites delivered to consumers quickly, while independent newspapers, bloggers, innovators, and small businesses would see their sites languish in the slow lane, destroying a level playing field for competition online and clearly violating Net Neutrality.³

3: The rules allow corporations to create "public" and "private" Internets, destroying the one Internet as we know it

For the first time, these rules would embrace a "public Internet" for regular people vs. a "private Internet" with all the new innovations for corporations who pay more -- ending the Internet as we know it and creating tiers of free speech and innovation, accessible only if you have pockets deep enough to pay off the corporations.

The statement issued by the FCC about why it chose to pass the rules gets ridiculed by engadget.com; they wonder if the FCC should have consulted some 17-year-old kids about Android:

[snip]  “Further, we recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android. In addition, we anticipate soon seeing the effects on the market of the openness conditions we imposed on mobile providers that operate on upper 700 MHz C-Block spectrum, which includes Verizon Wireless, one of the largest mobile wireless carriers in the U.S.

In light of these considerations, we conclude it is appropriate to take measured steps at this time to protect the openness of the Internet when accessed through mobile broadband.

Now, we obviously love Android, and there's no doubt that Google's OS has been part of some wonderfully furious competition in the mobile space recently. But we're not sure any of that has anything to do with net neutrality -- it doesn't matter how open your OS is when you're stuck with a filtered and throttled connection, and it's a pretty huge stretch to think Android's openness (however you want to define it) has anything to do with network access itself. And let's not forget that the primary proponent of the 700MHz open-access rules was Google, which promptly flip-flopped on the issue when it became Verizon's policy BFF after the Droid launch -- if we were slightly more paranoid, we'd be pretty sure there's a link between the FCC's Android mention and the combined furious lobbying of Google and Verizon. Nice try, boys -- but how about you make with the actual rules now?”

 Wired.com is almost sanguine about the rules, as is the business community at large.  Republicans are irate at any attempts to regulate even this much, and Mitch McConnel claims Obama is trying to take over the internet.

 Obama campaigned on Internet Neutrality, and is proud of the FCC’s rules; The Hill claims there was a lot of pressure from Dems on Copps and Clyburn to avoid burning the White House on this deal. 

 It’s hard not to see this as a major burn to consumers and small companies.  Commissioner Copps used to be one of our allies.  I'll guarantee you that this isn't one of those cases where if both ends of the political spectrum hate it, it means it must be right.

 What do you think?  Many of you know the tech parts I don’t.

UPDATE: From Al Franken: (beats me)

In today's net neutrality action by the Federal Communications Commission there's good news and bad news. The good news is that, thanks to Commissioners Copps and Clyburn -- not to mention a nationwide network of net neutrality activists -- the proposal approved today is better than the original circulated by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. For instance, the FCC has now stated that it does not condone discriminatory behavior by wireless companies like Verizon and AT&T -- an important piece that was missing from the first draft.

The bad news is that, while it's no longer worse than nothing, the rule approved today is not nearly strong enough to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet. And with so much at stake, I cannot support it.

I'm still very concerned that it includes almost nothing to protect net neutrality for mobile broadband service -- often the only choice for broadband if you live in rural or otherwise underserved areas. And I'm particularly disappointed that the FCC isn't specifically banning paid prioritization -- the creation of an Internet "fast lane" for corporations that can afford to pay for it.