In a significant vote, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last week voted against net neutrality. Or, if you prefer, in a significant vote last week, the FCC voted for net neutrality.

Confused? Join the crowd. So heated and contradictory is the rhetoric around the subject that two leading US newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, reported the vote as potentially achieving a diametrically opposed result.

According to an initial Times version the FCC voted 3-2 "to move forward with a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open internet, prohibiting high-speed internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through their pipes".

The Post story stated the FCC had voted in favour "of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the internet, opening the possibility of internet service providers charging websites for higher- quality delivery of their content to American consumers".

The New York Times eventually changed its story to open: "Federal regulators appear to share one view about so-called net neutrality: it is a good thing. But defining net neutrality? That is where things get messy."

Messy is right. The current FCC definition of net neutrality is pointedly different to what most understand by the term. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler proposed that an "open internet" could include permission for internet service providers (ISPs) to charge for an information highway fast lane. Businesses that use more bandwidth for services, such as search engines or streaming video services, could be required to pay more for faster net speeds.

The FCC voted along party lines (Democrats for, Republicans against) to support that version of neutrality last Thursday. However, that’s not a final decision – the proposal is now open to public comment, with a final decision likely later in the year.

Columbia University professor Tim Wu is credited with coining the term net neutrality, which he sees as an internet that "aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally". Notably, he does not see the proposed FCC fast lane approach as fitting that definition.

Democrat support The party line vote within the commission itself is confusing, as – alongside both large Silicon Valley companies and smaller start-ups, VCs, investors and internet freedom campaign groups – Democrat lawmakers have generally supported Wu's version of net neutrality.

Wheeler’s own statements during the meeting at which the vote was taken were confusing. “There is one internet. It must be fast, it must be robust, and it must be open,” he said. “The prospect of a gatekeeper choosing winners and losers on the internet is unacceptable.”

Yet the rules allow for network providers to negotiate terms of business individually with service providers – a fast lane that splits the internet into levels of service on the data provision side. Note that this is quite different from allowing individual consumers to purchase better levels of service, something that world wide web creator Tim Berners-Lee supports.

On the New York Times website, Wu notes "a gap between [Wheeler's] speeches and the actual rules".

An alternative proposal for the FCC is to treat the internet like a utility – regulating it and the network providers. Most in the Wu-definition camp support this approach. Those who reject it feel the less government regulation, the better. Their “open internet” is one in which network providers are incentivised to keep improving their networks because they can charge some businesses more for better service provision.

The EU voted earlier this year for Wu’s version of net neutrality. I think that’s the right approach, and ensures as level a playing field as possible for large and small businesses, as well as for consumers.

Smaller businesses will find it hard to compete to offer innovative net services if they have to pay more for data delivery. And, as always, the consumer will pay more in the end, one way or another.

Europe must work urgently and forcefully to prevent a situation where the EU has true net neutrality, and the US does not, creating two different business environments on a global network. If the FCC vote was confusing, just wait until we are forced to figure out how to reconcile them. Let's hope we don't have to go there.