The FCC's rules had three main provisions for wired broadband providers: They could not block access to any legal content or service, they could not favor one site's traffic over another, and they had to make clear what they were doing to reduce congestion in their pipes. Wireless broadband providers could not block legal sites either, and could not discriminate unreasonably against competing voice or video services.
That sort of unimpeded access is pretty much how the Internet has functioned since the days of dial-up modems, and it's crucial to the dazzling innovation and technological advancements since the advent of broadband connections. Writing for a three-judge panel, Judge David Tatel accepted the FCC's argument that the steady stream of new content and services drives the demand for Internet connections, so protecting the openness of the Net would spur the investment in broadband that Congress hoped to encourage. The problem, Tatel wrote, is that the commission's rules put broadband providers into a tighter box than federal law allows.
Opponents of the net neutrality rules say the FCC is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. But top broadband executives have repeatedly said that they want to charge tolls on the sites responsible for the most traffic, and AT&T recently announced a plan that invites sites to pay the data bill for AT&T's customers.