Barring intervention by a higher court, the Federal Communications Commission is on the cusp of exerting unprecedented control over the companies that provide access to the internet.

Years in the making — and coming after courts twice struck down previous attempts at regulation — the green light flashed by a three-judge panel on the D.C. Court of Appeals last week paved the way for rules that could affect consumers in ways they likely have never considered.

“What this was was a power grab by the federal government on the internet,” said Deborah Collier, director of technology and telecommunications policy for Citizens Against Government Waste. “The question was, who controls the internet? And unfortunately, at this point, it looks like it will be the federal government.”

“What this was was a power grab by the federal government on the internet.”

The FCC under the Obama administration has pushed aggressively to treat internet service providers like phone companies, subjecting them to regulatory authority originally meant to protect consumers from public utilities that enjoy monopolies. The court agreed, writing that as the conduits to the information superhighway, ISPs have unusual power to slow or block Americans from using a medium that has dramatically transformed life in this country.

“Over the past two decades, this content has transformed nearly every aspect of our lives, from profound actions like choosing a leader, building a career, and falling in love to more quotidian ones like hailing a cab and watching a movie,” Judges Sri Srinivasan and David Tatel wrote for the majority.

So-called “network neutrality” advocates often cast the debate as a fight to determine whether ISPs can shut off third-party content to stifle competition. For instance, a company that both connects users to the internet and offers cable TV programming, like Comcast, could decide to block the streaming service Netflix.

Collier does view that as far-fetched.

“That is not realistic,” she said, pointing out that an ISP that tried such a heavy-handed approach would likely lose large numbers of customers to competing ISPs.

[lz_third_party includes=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vvp8TTWMl4″]

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

Collier said she also doubts a less-onerous scenario often raised by net neutrality advocates — that ISPs might slow down certain third-party content or charge them higher rates for “fast lanes.”

The new power of the FCC is not quite a done deal. The telecom defendants could ask the full circuit court to overturn the ruling of the three-judge panel. Or, they could ask the Supreme Court to take the case. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association said last week it was considering its options and renewed calls for congressional leaders to “renew their efforts to craft meaningful legislation that can end ongoing uncertainty, promote network investment, and protect consumers.”

With the high court currently missing a justice since Antonin Scalia’s death earlier this year, though, most observers believe it is unlikely the justices would hear the case.

Collier predicted new regulations will stifle innovation and delay new technology by requiring costly and time-consuming reviews by the FCC.

“It’s really going to slow everything down,” she said.

The FCC is currently developing rules governing new requirements on how ISPs must protect consumer privacy. June 27 is the deadline for responding to public comments that have been made as part of the rule-making process. Currently, ISPs are subject to much lighter regulation by the Federal Trade Commission.

Collier said both agencies should synchronize their rules to provide uniformity. She raised the uncertain but possible scenario that an ISP could be held liable for a data breach at a third-party company. For instance, if an email service gets hacked, regulators could sanction the ISP that customers used to access the email.

“It puts a lot of strange burdens on ISPs for a lot of things they don’t even have control over,” she said.

[lz_related_box id=”153961″]

Concerns about the impact of increased regulation are not limited to the industry to conservative think tanks. The Progressive Policy Institute, home to centrist Democrats that dominated in the 1990s, produced a report in 2014 warning that a “heavy-handed approach” could reduce ISP investment at the “core” of the internet.

“Chase a billion dollars in investment from the broadband ecosystem with heavy-handed regulation and you can wipe out 20,000 jobs,” report co-author Hal Singer wrote in a Forbes magazine op-ed in August. “And if a billion dollars of withdrawn capital destroys 20,000 jobs, imagine what three billion … Shudder at the thought.”

Collier said utilities are fundamentally different from the ISPs to which they are compared. The electric company enjoys a monopoly, she said; almost all Americans have choices in accessing the web.

“Internet service provider competition is fair, and competition is growing,” she said.