BY SETH G. MACYUPDATE: The FCC has passed the Net Neutrality rules to treat internet providers as "common carriers" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

As a result, this will allow the commission to prohibit providers from granting faster internet service for higher prices.

See full story below.

The FCC will be ruling on whether or not broadband internet access will be classified as a "telecommunications service under Title II."

This means that the ruling will decide whether or not the FCC will classify broadband internet as a utility, which would give the commission greater regulatory power over ISPs.

Regulating ISPs is seen by the FCC as necessary to protect what is referred to as the "Open Internet." The first three "bright line" rules laid out by the FCC to protect the Open Internet, as explained in an FCC fact sheet, prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

Blocking, per the FCC's fact sheet, is explained as blocking access to "legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices." Throttling is explained as the impairment or degradation of "lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices." Paid prioritization prohibition means broadband providers "may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration." The rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

The ruling has not yet been made, but when the decision has been announced, we will update this story. No matter what the decision, there is no doubt today's vote will have an historic impact on the way consumers and companies alike use and provide internet services. Be sure to keep checking back to IGN as we follow this ground-breaking decision.

Source

From my understanding this is bad news for ISPs as they won't be able to throttle speeds for certain services. Could be bad for us too if fees go up ISPs are internet bills might too.

Well, from what the FCC can do, yes, I think it is good (although, of course any bit of Government action should be viewed with scrutiny), as FIT_Gamer said, it makes ISP's not able to Block, Throttle or prioritize bandwidth.  Ergo, ISP's have been throttling clients who download (regardless of whether it's legal or not), and Netflix users.  We really don't want a 'fast lane' and a 'slow lane' online, and we certainly don't want ISP's deciding such things.

i think it is a good thing.  

this prevents the cable companies from saying your data can be given preferentail treatment only if you pay more money.  so in other words it should prevent comcast from fucking over companies like this which, imo, is extortion. 

Suck it, ISPs.

I can't wait to see if others will join AT&T's hissy fit and declare "no more infrastructure investment."

Doubt they'd want to try that, because I'm pretty sure the American Gov't will yank their federally backed monopoly rights in a heartbeat and open the US to actual competition.  That's not something they want to toy around with.  Plus, allot of these monopoly contracts have infrastructure/coverage requirements built inside them, so should they stop investing, the US can cancel their contract/penalize them (not sure exactly what the punitive measures can be, but I know in Vermont they held Adelphia (now Comcast) accountable for failing to meet certain coverage timelines).

Edit: Of course, that depends on a bunch of things also.  If the US Elects a Republican president, in 2016, I can imagine these rulings will be dismantled.  On the other hand, there's plenty of Democrats who're most likely in bed w/ the ISP's also...so, who knows.  I guess it kind of depends on the wording of the federal laws and ISP territories.

I completely agree with it. 25 meg min internet speed, no throttling customers and no fast lanes for companies. I'd like to look at the details of it but that's what heard about it. Greedy ISP's crying in the fetal position right about now.

This problem could have been solved in far better ways than what it was.

Courts: "You can't do this because you don't have the power to do this"
FCC: "What if I say that I have the power to do this"
Courts: "Yeah, that's fine"

People should be concerned about a federal agency giving itself authority over a matter, without any form of action from the legislature.

"Bear welcome in your eye, your hand, your tongue. Look like th' innocent flower, but be the serpent under ’t."

Until the Federal Agency abuses this, then I don't  have a problem.  However, the ISP's have already been abusing this, so, steps needed to be taken. 

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: "This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech." he said.  "They both stand for the same concept: Openness, expression and an abscence of gatekeepers."