FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules Struck Down by Federal Appeals Court

Federal Appeals Court Overturns FCC Decision Landmark net neutrality rules on Thursday, ending a nearly two-decade effort to regulate broadband Internet providers as public utilities.

US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, said The FCC did not have the authority to reinstate rules that prevented broadband providers from slowing down or blocking access to Internet content. In her opinion, the three-judge panel pointed to a June Supreme Court decision known as Loper Bright, which overturned a 1984 legal precedent that respected government agencies in regulatory matters.

“The application of Lauper Bright means that we can end the FCC’s dithering,” the court ruled.

Court decision end the Biden administration’s signature technology policieswhich has drawn enthusiastic support from consumer groups and tech giants such as Google, and furious protests from telecom giants such as Comcast and AT&T.

In April, the Federal Communications Commission voted to restore net neutrality rules that expand government oversight of broadband providers and strive to protect consumer access to the Internet. The rules were first introduced nearly a decade ago under the Obama administration and were aimed at preventing internet providers such as Verizon or Comcast from blocking or degrading services from competitors such as Netflix and YouTube. The rules were rolled back under President-elect Donald Trump in his first administration, but they remained a contentious issue that pitted tech giants against broadband providers.

Thursday’s decision effectively ends an ongoing battle. Brendan Carr, whom Trump appointed as the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has been a sharp critic of net neutrality. The court’s reliance on Loper’s case could also herald more lawsuits to undermine federal rules at the FCC and other agencies.

The court’s decision “will put an end to a problem that has unnecessarily consumed a lot of oxygen in the technology and telecommunications industries for two decades,” said Evan Schwartztrauber, a former policy adviser to Mr. Carr.

In a statement, Mr. Carr said he was “pleased” with the decision and that “work will continue to address the Biden administration’s regulatory abuses.”

The court’s decision does not affect state net neutrality laws in California, Washington and Colorado. Democrats on the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday called on Congress to pass laws promoting net neutrality, signaling the problem could continue to worsen.

“Consumers across the country have told us time and time again that they want a fast, open and fair Internet,” said Jessica Rosenworcel, the FCC chairwoman and a Democrat who advocated for restoring the rules. “It is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take responsibility for net neutrality, and incorporate the principles of an open Internet into federal law.”

Judge Richard Allen Griffin, who wrote Thursday’s opinion, said the panel recognized that the Internet is complex and that the FCC “has considerable experience in overseeing “this technical and complex area.”

But the FCC’s interpretation of its authority to define a broadband Internet service similar to telephone service trumps the legal definitions in the Telecommunications Act, he wrote.

“The FCC lacks the legislative authority to impose desired net neutrality policies,” he said.

The term “net neutrality” was coined in 2003 by Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University, who warned that broadband Internet service providers could become gatekeepers of Internet access and block or charge for access to certain content.

The idea was supported by Google, Facebook and Netflix. Companies lobbied the FCC to create rules to prevent preferential treatment of content by Internet service providers.

In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission, under Democratic Chairman Julius Genachowski, put forward its first proposals for net neutrality rules, sparking a wave of public interest. The rules sparked street protests, a flood of email comments and even threats of violence against commissioners who opposed the rules.

The technical and shaky issue resonated politically with progressives, who saw the rules as a necessary check on corporate power and a campaign to preserve an open and fair Internet.

But cable and telecommunications companies opposed the rules largely because they considered them a regulatory violation. They feared that classifying broadband providers as “common carriers,” like phone companies, would open the door to utility-style regulation and government price setting.

Broadband providers welcomed Thursday’s ruling. “Our fight to end the government’s unwarranted takeover of the Internet has resulted in a major victory,” said Grant Spellmeyer, executive director of ACA Connects, a small cable TV trade group.

In recent years, this issue has lost much of its public importance. Anger has since turned to social media platforms that spread misinformation and harm young users. But the fight over rules continued, with each administration introducing or eliminating rules along party lines.

“The market hasn’t seen this as a big deal for a long time,” said Blair Levin, a former FCC chief of staff and an adviser to NewStreet Research.