WHAT FCC’S VOTE TO END NET NEUTRALITY MEANS FOR YOU

keepers play favorites — and report them to the Federal Trade Commission. The big Internet and cable providers, who lobbied hard for repeal, say they won’t stop or slow any legal content.

The change in rules does open the door for ISPs to charge some users more than others.

Companies could charge extra for these services on top of your monthly Internet bill as a result of the new rules adopted by the FCC, Forrester Research analyst Susan Bidel said.

She pointed to Portugal and England, where monthly services are offered with extra fees for social, messaging and video viewing.

Companies such as AT& T and Verizon “could charge extra here,” Bidel said.

Opponents of the change, who contended consumers would be hit with higher bills, won’t go quietly, planning to combat the regulations in Congress and the courts.

Some in Congress said they would push legislation to overturn the measure.

Just as previous attempts to pass Internet regulations landed in court, so probably will these rules.

The measure in 2015, passed by an agency controlled by Democrats and led by Chairman Tom Wheeler, withstood a court challenge from USTelecom, a trade association that counts among its members AT& T and Verizon, and San Antonio- Internet provider Alamo Broadband.

Decrying those so- called net neutrality regulations as “heavy- handed micromanagement” and “utilitystyle” regulations, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the replacement provisions do a better job for consumers and businesses alike.

The FCC’s action “is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to kill democracy, and it’s not going to stifle free expression on- line,” Pai said. “We are helping consumers and promoting competition.”

Appointed as FCC chairman by President Trump in January, Pai voted against the rules when they passed in 2015 while he was a commissioner. He has supported “light- touch” regulations that require ISPs to disclose any blocking or prioritization of their own content or from their partners.

Under the new rules, called the Restoring Internet Freedom order, ISPs must disclose any cases in which they prioritize some content, whether its their own or that of a paying partner, over other content.

The order eliminates an Internet conduct standard meant to prevent ISPs from unreasonable interference with consumers’ access to destinations on the Net.

The idea behind that transparency mandate is to keep Internet providers subject to two forms of discipline.

At a minimum, broadband customers could check to see if a provider would hinder a site they like. Pai’s proposed order, posted Wednesday, suggests that public pressure alone would push an ISP to back down from any such interference, citing AT& T’s quick retreat in 2012 from blocking Apple’s FaceTime app.

An ISP that interfered with a site in undocumented ways or tried to suppress a competitor to one of its own services would risk an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission.

The FTC can investigate “unfair or deceptive” conduct and seek civil penalties for it.

Critics said Internet providers would begin offering service in slow and fast tiers in a bid to make extra money and throttle the service of the heaviest users.

This would be similar to airport traffic, where payment of an extra fee gets passengers through the TSA Precheck line more quickly or in a better seat on a plane.

Comcast wouldn’t “block, throttle or discriminate against lawful content on the Internet,” said David Cohen, senior executive vice president of the nation’s largest Internet provider.