Current Events > Net Neutrality Rules Struck Down by US Appeals Court, Internet not Utility

(+) Yeah! (+)

A federal appeals court struck down the Federal Communications Commissions landmark net neutrality rules on Thursday, ending a nearly two-decade effort to regulate broadband internet providers as utilities.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, said the F.C.C. lacked the authority to reinstate rules that prevented broadband providers from slowing or blocking access to internet content. In its opinion, a three-judge panel pointed to a Supreme Court decision in June, known as Loper Bright, that overturned a 1984 legal precedent that gave deference to government agencies on regulations.
Applying Loper Bright means we can end the F.C.C.s vacillations, the court ruled.
The courts decision put an end to the Biden administrations hallmark tech policy, which had drawn impassioned support from consumer groups and tech giants like Google and fierce protests from telecommunications giants like Comcast and AT&T.
The F.C.C. had voted in April to restore net neutrality regulations, which expand government oversight of broadband providers and aim to protect consumer access to the internet. The regulations were first put in place nearly a decade ago under the Obama administration and were aimed at preventing internet service providers like Verizon or Comcast from blocking or degrading the delivery of services from competitors like Netflix and YouTube. The rules were repealed under President-elect Donald J. Trump in his first administration, but they continued to be a contentious partisan issue that pit tech giants against broadband providers.

Thursdays decision effectively concludes the back-and-forth battle. Brendan Carr, whom Mr. Trump has named as the incoming F.C.C. chair, has been a strong critic of net neutrality. The courts reliance on the Loper case in its ruling could also portend more lawsuits to hollow out federal regulations at the F.C.C. and other agencies.
The courts opinion puts to bed an issue that unnecessarily sucked up a lot of oxygen in tech and telecom for two decades now, said Evan Swarztrauber, a former policy adviser to Mr. Carr.
In a statement, Mr. Carr said that he was pleased by the decision and that the work to unwind the Biden administrations regulatory overreach will continue.
The courts decision doesnt affect state laws on net neutrality in California, Washington and Colorado. Democrats at the F.C.C. called on Thursday for Congress to create laws promoting net neutrality, signaling that the issue may continue to fester.
Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an internet that is fast, open, and fair, said Jessica Rosenworcel, the chairwoman of the F.C.C. and a Democrat who had pushed for the reinstatement of the rules. It is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take up the charge for net neutrality and put open internet principles in federal law.

Judge Richard Allen Griffin, who wrote Thursdays opinion, said that the panel of judges acknowledged that the internet was complicated and that the F.C.C. has significant expertise in overseeing this technical and complex area.
But the F.C.C.s interpretation of its authority to define broadband internet service akin to phone service exceeded legal definitions in the Telecommunications Act, he wrote.
The F.C.C. lacks the statutory authority to impose its desired net-neutrality policies, he said.
The term net neutrality was coined in 2003 by Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor, who warned that broadband internet service providers could become gatekeepers of internet access and block or charge for access to certain content.
The concept was championed by Google, Facebook and Netflix. The companies lobbied the F.C.C. to create rules to prevent preferential treatment of content by the internet service providers.
In 2010, the F.C.C. under the Democratic chairman, Julius Genachowski, created the first proposals for net neutrality rules, stirring waves of public interest. The rules prompted street protests, torrents of email comments and even threats of violence against commissioners who opposed the rules.

The technical and wonky issue resonated politically with progressives who saw the rules as a necessary restraint on corporate power and a campaign to keep the internet open and fair.
But cable and telecom companies opposed the rules largely because they saw them as regulatory overreach. They feared that classifying broadband providers as common carriers, like phone companies, opened the door to utility-style regulation and government price setting.
Broadband providers hailed the courts decision on Thursday. Our fight to stop the governments unwarranted internet takeover has resulted in a major victory, said Grant Spellmeyer, the chief executive of a small cable trade group, ACA Connects.
In recent years, the issue has lost much of its public momentum. Anger has since turned toward social media platforms for their spread of misinformation and harms to young users. But the battle over the regulations continued, with each administration introducing or rolling back the rules along partisan lines.
The market no longer thinks its a big deal and hasnt for a while, said Blair Levin, a former chief of staff to the F.C.C. and an adviser to NewStreet Research.

WASHINGTON, Jan 2 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday the Federal Communications Commission did not have legal authority to reinstate landmark net neutrality rules.
The decision is a blow to the outgoing Biden administration that had made restoring the open internet rules a priority. President Joe Biden signed a 2021 executive order encouraging the FCC to reinstate the rules.
A three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the FCC lacked authority to reinstate the rules initially implemented in 2015 by the agency under Democratic former President Barack Obama, but then repealed by the commission in 2017 under Republican former President Donald Trump.
Net-neutrality rules require internet service providers to treat internet data and users equally rather than restricting access, slowing speeds or blocking content for certain users. The rules also forbid special arrangements in which ISPs give improved network speeds or access to favored users.
The court cited the Supreme Court's June decision in a case known as Loper Bright to overturn a 1984 precedent that had given deference to government agencies in interpreting laws they administer, in the latest decision to curb the authority of federal agencies. "Applying Loper Bright means we can end the FCCs vacillations," the court ruled.
The decision leaves in place state neutrality rules adopted by California and others but may end more than 20 years of efforts to give federal regulators sweeping oversight over the internet.
Incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr voted against the reinstatement last year and praised the decision to invalidate what he called Biden's "internet power grab." He vowed to unwind additional regulations.
FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel called on Congress to act after the decision. "Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an internet that is fast, open, and fair. With this decision it is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take up the charge for net neutrality, and put open internet principles in federal law," Rosenworcel said in a statement.
The FCC voted in April along party lines to reassume regulatory oversight of broadband internet and reinstate open internet rules. Industry groups filed suit and successfully convinced the court to temporarily block the rules as they considered the case.
USTelecom, an industry group whose members include AT&T (T.N)
, opens new tab
and Verizon (VZ.N)
, opens new tab
, said in a joint statement with other groups that sued that the ruling is "a victory for American consumers that will lead to more investment, innovation, and competition in the dynamic digital marketplace."

Former FCC Chair Ajit Pai said the court ruling should mean the end of efforts to reinstate the rules, and a focus shift to "what actually matters to American consumers - like improving Internet access and promoting online innovation."
The Trump administration is unlikely to appeal the decision but net-neutrality advocates could seek review by the Supreme Court.
The rules would have given the FCC new tools to crack down on Chinese telecom companies and the ability to monitor internet service outages.

How much fucking tax payer money went to laying cables again? How the fuck is it not a utility?!

How much fucking tax payer money went to laying cables again? How the fuck is it not a utility?!

Ironically I think this might be a rare case of healthy competition in the free market working to peoples' advantage, as long as they're not in a rural area with only one provider. Where I live no ISP would be bold enough to implement data caps first, and if they did, shitloads of people would just switch to a competing service.

If it's not a utility then the ISPs can pay back all the taxpayers funds that went towards running cable the like.

Ironically I think this might be a rare case of healthy competition in the free market working to peoples' advantage, as long as they're not in a rural area with only one provider. Where I live no ISP would be bold enough to implement data caps first, and if they did, shitloads of people would just switch to a competing service.

EDIT: Yeah, now that I think of it that was pretty fucking dumb. They'd probably gradually acclimate customers to data caps and throttling

Welp, were back to trusting that ISPs wont throttle traffic.

Fortunately, with higher bandwidth fiber internet and more capable network infrastructure, there is less of a reason for ISPs to throttle traffic. However, a lot of areas in the US still only have low speed DSL/Cable options available where throttling would be much more prevalent if ISPs choose to do it, .

As usual the urban areas with competition won't really be affected and this predominantly screws over Trump voters.

As usual the urban areas with competition won't really be affected and this predominantly screws over Trump voters.

As usual the urban areas with competition won't really be affected and this predominantly screws over Trump voters.

This is a hail mary pass of a prediction but what if this ironically forces the batshit insane MAGA base to use the internet less and go back to just watching television?

If stupid fucks can't afford to use the internet and/or their internet becomes slow as hell as a result of being too terminally-online, wouldn't that in theory be a positive?

As usual the urban areas with competition won't really be affected and this predominantly screws over Trump voters.

Nah lol web browsing takes up like almost no data. Netflix and shit will be the first to go.

Nah lol web browsing takes up like almost no data.

Not true, I have 2 GB of data on my phone plan and if I browse the internet with it 30 minutes to an hour a day I hit my cap long before the end of the month.

What malicious sites are you going to?

Not true, I have 2 GB of data on my phone plan and if I browse the internet with it 30 minutes to an hour a day I hit my cap long before the end of the month.

Why don't you switch to something like Mint or Visible? Whatever you're paying can't be cheaper than what they cost.

As usual the urban areas with competition won't really be affected and this predominantly screws over Trump voters.

What competition? Didn't even John Oliver explain how two cable companies basically carved up New York City into their own cable fiefdoms?

In the US you still only have one good ISP available in your area right?

There is no competition in the US though. Regional monopolies fuck that up.

Regional monopolies aren't a thing everywhere. I have FOUR choices for ISP here where I live.

Yes, but 3 are likely slow shit not worth using

No they are all about the same.

because Capitalism

the poor man should pull himself up from his bootstraps...
oh he needs the internet to do that and it isn't free?
too bad

How much fucking tax payer money went to laying cables again? How the fuck is it not a utility?!

AT&T, Hughes, Charter, and Spectrum?

Charter and Spectrum are the same thing. Idk what Hughes is, but my options are AT&T, Spectrum, Verizon FiOS, and Comcast Xfinity.

Those are the big name ones anyway. Pretty much every place in earth can get various satellite providers.

It is borderline impossible to find a job without Internet any more

Ironically I think this might be a rare case of healthy competition in the free market working to peoples' advantage, as long as they're not in a rural area with only one provider.

there is less of a reason for ISPs to throttle traffic

Gamefaqs

I pay $60 a month for unlimited talk text and 2 gigabytes of data. I really only use my data if the wi-fi at work is not working

You are being robbed dude. I have the same plan that you do, but I only pay 15 bucks a month.