Why net neutrality isn't dead just yet
An appeals court rules in favor of big telecom — but there's still hope for advocates of an open internet
In a major blow to proponents of net neutrality, a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down part of the Federal Communications Commission's rules that require internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally.
By a 2-1 ruling, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the FCC had overstepped its authority in trying to prevent ISPs from discriminating against content — by, say, charging different rates for different speeds, or by blocking content outright. Specifically, the panel said the FCC had erred in the way it had chosen to classify ISPs.
The distinction hinges on something known as "common carrier" regulations, which apply to private companies that provide infrastructure services in low-competition fields. They're essentially a check against infrastructure monopolies.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Telecom companies had long been subject to common carrier regulations. But with the rapid evolution in the industry over the past few decades, the FCC, with newfound authority via the 1996 Telecommunications Act, essentially reclassified ISPs as "information services" — which are exempt from common carrier regulations — as opposed to "telecommunications services," which are not. It's a minor distinction, but an important one that formed the backbone of Tuesday's ruling.
Here's the relevant passage:
In other words, it's not that the FCC can't impose anti-discrimination regulations on ISPs; it's that they can't do so unless they classify ISPs as "telecommunications services," which would then subject them to common carrier regulations.
The court's ruling is exactly what some net neutrality advocates feared when the FCC announced its Open Internet Order in 2010.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Courts have held that the FCC has the power to classify ISPs as it sees fit. But under pressure from skeptics on Capitol Hill and the powerful telecom industry, the FCC controversially tried to split the difference with the 2010 order: It chose not to reclassify content providers as common carriers, but argued it could still regulate them as such.
Hence, the Media Access Project bemoaned that it could not "support the watered-down, loophole-ridden option that the FCC appears to have chosen." Some 80 net neutrality advocates signed a joint letter to the FCC warning that the agency had taken an "unnecessary risk" by going halfway and basing its rules on untested legal ground.
So where does net neutrality go from here?
The FCC could appeal the decision — which it says it may do. Then it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether, absent reclassifying ISPs as common carriers, the agency can still subject them to anti-discrimination regulation.
Since the appeals court reaffirmed the FCC's general authority to regulate ISPs, the FCC could also rewrite its rules to ensure they hold legal muster. Or the agency could just do what many reformers suggested in the first place and classify broadband as a common carrier.
Here's Gigaom's Jeff John Roberts on that point:
New FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has sent mixed signals on the issue, so its unclear exactly how his agency will respond. Either way, net neutrality lives to fight another day.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Jon Terbush is an associate editor at TheWeek.com covering politics, sports, and other things he finds interesting. He has previously written for Talking Points Memo, Raw Story, and Business Insider.
-
What's wrong with Pakistan's cricket team?
Under the Radar Dramatic downfall of previous powerhouse blamed on poor management and appointments of regime favourites at governing body PCB
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
All about Zealandia, the Earth's potential 8th continent
The Explainer The secret continent went undiscovered for over 300 years
By Devika Rao, The Week US Published
-
JK Rowling's transphobia controversy: a complete timeline
feature How did we get to this point, and what, exactly, has the author said?
By Brendan Morrow Published
-
How could J.D. Vance impact the special relationship?
Today's Big Question Trump's hawkish pick for VP said UK is the first 'truly Islamist country' with a nuclear weapon
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Biden, Trump urge calm after assassination attempt
Speed Reads A 20-year-old gunman grazed Trump's ear and fatally shot a rally attendee on Saturday
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Supreme Court rejects challenge to CFPB
Speed Read The court rejected a conservative-backed challenge to the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published