Editor-DN
What you need to know.
- In an appeals court ruling this week, net neutrality rules were struck down in a major blow to regulation.
- The court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to impose net neutrality rules on ISPs, contradicting the agency’s interpretation of the Telecommunications Act.
- The ruling curbs executive branch agencies’ ability to regulate big tech companies, and its precedent could be applied to hot-button issues like overhaul.
After a brief revival of net neutrality by the Biden administration, a federal appeals court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did not have the authority to enforce these rules on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). . The controversial set of net neutrality rules has been the subject of intense debate for nearly a decade, and Court decision That means they can be good. More importantly, the decision further sets precedent that limits the ability of federal agencies to regulate big tech, such as in aspects such as right-to-repair.
For those unfamiliar, net neutrality was a set of rules that essentially forced ISPs to treat all internet traffic the same. It doesn’t matter what website you want to reach or where you’re located—ISPs may not prioritize some domains over others.
Why would an ISP want to do this? Comcast, for example, owns Xfinity, which represents 40% of all broadband Internet subscriptions and is by far the nation’s leading ISP. Statista.. It also owns NBCUniversal, which hosts the streaming service Peacock. Without net neutrality, Comcast could – in theory – prioritize Peacock streams over Netflix streams to put its own interests ahead of those of its subscribers.
So, this is an argument for net neutrality. Argument against Net neutrality is that it will result in consumers paying more for internet service. Think about it: If ISPs were allowed to throttle certain sites’ Internet speeds, it could demand that the companies hosting those sites pay for better priority. Without net neutrality, deals with big-name sites serve as sources of additional revenue for ISPs — revenue that would otherwise be earned by overcharging average people.
For years, the FCC struggled to accurately classify ISPs. It was launched in 2005 under the name “information services”, which would not give the FCC the authority to impose regulations on them. After that, he transferred the course in 2010, passed. Open an internet order.. Broadband providers sued to block the FCC’s first stab at net neutrality rules and were successful, as the courts ruled that the FCC only applies to “common carriers” such as airlines, railroads and some telecom companies. can regulate
It was settled – or so we thought. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama gave the FCC the green light to reclassify broadband Internet providers as common carriers. Thus, giving the FCC the power to enact net neutrality rules as they are known today. Again, it looked set, until the FCC decided to roll back net neutrality in 2017 under then-President Trump.
Finally, net neutrality got a second chance under President Biden, though it immediately faced serious legal challenges. This brings us to the moment, when a federal appeals court, with the help of a new Supreme Court precedent, apparently treated net neutrality as good.
Regardless of what you think about net neutrality, this decision is monumental. This was confirmed when the US Supreme Court overturned a legal principle established by the 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) case. Give importance to the interpretation of laws by expert regulatory agencies when deciding cases.
Why would courts give deference to executive branch agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the FCC? The rationale was twofold. For one thing, these cases typically deal with complex issues that the average federal judge is likely not an expert on, whereas regulatory agencies are authoritative subject matter experts in their respective fields.
Additionally, the idea was that executive branch agencies were best placed to make important policy decisions because they could be held accountable by voters — we saw this in action as the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations dismantled net neutrality. went
When the Supreme Court struck down the idea of Chevron deference last year, it set a precedent for courts nationwide to favor their own interpretation of laws over regulatory agencies.
That’s exactly how we got here. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the FCC’s classification of ISPs as common carriers, and did not think the FCC had the authority to enforce net neutrality rules. For the first time in decades, court opinions matter more than agency opinions.
“Unlike past challenges that the D.C. Circuit considered under Chevron, we are no longer constrained to read down the FCC’s statute,” the judges wrote in their decision. “We recognize that the work of the Internet is complex and dynamic, and that the FCC has ‘significant expertise in overseeing this technical and complex area,'” he continued, adding that the agency’s interpretation of ” Cannot be used to overwrite plain meaning. Constitution.”
The decision is not only a major blow to net neutrality, but also a blow to big tech regulation in general. If executive branch agencies — like the FCC or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — can’t reign in tech companies without clear rules authorizing them to do so — progress can stall.
This fact puts even more pressure on the US Congress to create laws that regulate big tech, which can withstand judicial scrutiny.
“Consumers across the country have told us time and time again that they want an Internet that’s fast, open and fair,” said FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel. statement. “This decision makes it clear that Congress now needs to act on their demand, take responsibility for net neutrality, and enshrine open internet principles in federal law.”
If you’ve followed hot-button technology policy topics of late—think net neutrality, fix-it repairs, antitrust, and interoperability—you know how difficult it is for Congress to agree on these issues. Now that Chevron’s deference is gone, and the new precedent is applied to big technology for the first time, agencies will have limited leeway to regulate these groups. Only time will tell how the transition to a Trump administration later this month will also affect the real progress made in big tech regulation over the past few years.
