A federal appeals court has recently overturned the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) attempt to reinstate net neutrality rules, a blow to supporters of the open internet principles.
The Hill reported that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the FCC did not hold the necessary authority to restore net neutrality regulations first instituted during the Obama administration.
The FCC’s efforts to bring back net neutrality rules were initially propelled by the Democratic leadership within the commission.
Under the administration of FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, a vote in April of the previous year aimed to reestablish regulations designed to ensure equal access to internet resources.
Trace the origins of these rules back to 2015, set during President Barack Obama’s term, these regulations were intended to forbid broadband providers from discriminating against particular internet traffic. This meant preventing actions like blocking, throttling, or prioritizing different data.
In contrast, these regulations faced a reversal in 2017 during the early tenure of the Trump administration, which saw the rules repealed. This repeal sparked a lengthy debate and a push from Democratic FCC officials to reinstate net neutrality.
Last June, the Supreme Court made a crucial decision that affected the legal standing of agency interpretations. It ended "Chevron deference," a doctrine that had previously allowed courts to rely on agency expertise in cases where laws were ambiguous. This set the stage for the recent appeals court decision, requiring judges to rely on their understanding of the law.
The 6th Circuit Court's ruling emphasized this shift, suggesting that broadband should be classified as an "information service" rather than a "telecommunications service."
According to judges Richard Allen Griffin and John K. Bush, this classification does not align with the FCC's recent stance and thus falls outside their regulatory purview.
FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel reacted to the court’s ruling with disappointment, highlighting widespread consumer demand for an open and fair internet.
"Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an internet that is fast, open, and fair,” Rosenworcel stated. She further remarked on the role of Congress: “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."
In contrast, Republican Commissioner Brendan Carr criticized the FCC’s justification for applying stringent regulations under Title II of the Communications Act, labeling it a "laundry list of bogus justification." This reflects the ongoing political contention surrounding how internet services should be regulated.
This divide illustrates the broader national dialogue on internet regulation and the principles that should guide accessibility and provider behavior in the digital age. The court's ruling not only reflects a significant legal and regulatory shift but also emphasizes the evolving interpretation of laws governing technology and communication.
The implications of this ruling may prod legislative action as suggested by Rosenworcel. Advocates for net neutrality are likely to turn their attention to Congress, urging a legislative solution to cement the principles of an open internet.