FCC Approves Paid Prioritization "Fast Lanes" Proposal Despite Massive Public Backlash

The Federal Communications Commission votes 3-2 to advance Chairman Tom Wheeler’s controversial proposal that would permit internet service providers to charge content companies for priority “fast lane” access to consumers, fundamentally threatening net neutrality principles. The proposal, which emerged after the January 2014 Verizon court decision struck down previous net neutrality rules, would allow ISPs to negotiate paid prioritization deals as long as the terms were deemed “commercially reasonable”—a vague standard that critics argued would inevitably favor deep-pocketed corporations over startups and individual creators.

The vote triggered an unprecedented backlash from technology companies, public interest advocates, and millions of internet users. Over 100 major internet companies—including Google, Microsoft, eBay, Facebook, and Netflix—signed a letter to Wheeler warning that the proposal represented “a grave threat to the Internet.” The plan was particularly controversial given Wheeler’s background as a former president and CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the cable industry’s principal lobbying organization, raising concerns about regulatory capture. Despite Wheeler’s insistence that “paid prioritization” would be prohibited under his proposal, critics noted this was contradicted by the plain language of the rules and characterized his defense as disingenuous rhetoric.

The proposal opened a public comment period that would ultimately receive nearly four million submissions, with the overwhelming majority opposing the fast lanes approach and demanding Title II reclassification to establish strong net neutrality protections. This massive public engagement, combined with pressure from President Obama and technology companies, would eventually force Wheeler to abandon the paid prioritization framework and embrace Title II reclassification in February 2015—a dramatic reversal that demonstrated both the power of public advocacy and the deep conflicts inherent in appointing industry insiders to regulatory positions.