Skip to main content

Internet users cheer, ISPs sigh as court upholds Net Neutrality ruling

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler
FCC Chairman Ted Wheeler (center), General Counsel Jon Sallet (left) and Senior Advisor Stephanie Weiner (right) helped craft and push for the FCC’s Open Internet Order, which courts have upheld. FCC
The United States broadband industry has failed in its attempt to appeal against regulations designed to enforce net neutrality. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld legislation stemming from the Open Internet Order, in a huge win for American broadband users.

Broadband providers like AT&T, CenturyLink and other smaller outfits were trying to fight back against the Federal Communications Commission, who voted in favor of net neutrality legislation in February 2015. Among other claims, the appeal attempted to argue that the prioritization of certain web content should be protected by the First Amendment.

However, these claims were shot down by the court. “Because a broadband provider does not — and is not understood by users to — ‘speak’ when providing neutral access to Internet content as common carriage, the First Amendment poses no bar to the open Internet rules,” read a statement from the judges that was attached to the decision.

This ruling should make it easier for consumers to get a fair deal on their broadband service. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler wrote “today’s ruling is a victory for consumers and innovators who deserve unfettered access to the entire Web, and it ensures the Internet remains a platform for unparalleled innovation, free expression and economic growth,” in a statement released after the decision was made.

1 yr ago @FCC #OpenInternet rules took effect. Today the court upheld rules keeping the internet fast, fair & open

— The FCC (@FCC) June 14, 2016

There was more response to the decision on a press call Digital Trends participated in shortly after the news broke. “We are absolutely thrilled that the FCC’s net neutrality order has been upheld in court today,” said Malkia Cyril of the Center for Media Justice “This court ruling is an absolute victory.”

Michael J. Scurato, vice president of policy for the National Hispanic Media Coalition noted that opponents to net neutrality “threw the kitchen sink at the commission” but were still unsuccessful. Scurato noted that this decision will allow the FCC to move onto other responsibilities.

While this decision would seem to close the door on any further appeals, advocates warn that there might be further attempts by ISPs to combat net neutrality legislation. “We’re going to continue to see the cable industry look for loopholes,” said David Segal of Demand Progress. “We’re going to need to stay on guard, but today’s win is simply extraordinary.”

Indeed, AT&T has already stated its intent to appeal once again, with the expectation that the matter will be taken to the Supreme Court.

Editors' Recommendations

Brad Jones
Brad is an English-born writer currently splitting his time between Edinburgh and Pennsylvania. You can find him on Twitter…
U.S. government sues California to stop its new net neutrality regulations
net neutrality rules fraud

After California passed what many consider to be the toughest protections in net neutrality this past weekend, the United States Department of Justice announced it will sue the state. California's SB822 was signed by Governor Jerry Brown to reverse many of the net neutrality protections that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) dismantled under agency Commissioner Ajit Pai earlier in 2018. In its lawsuit, the Justice Department argued that the bill "unlawfully imposes burdens on the Federal Government’s deregulatory approach to the internet" and that because the internet itself can be categorized as a function of interstate commerce, regulation of this area falls under federal jurisdiction.

“Under the Constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce -- the federal government does," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement denouncing California's bill. "Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy. The Justice Department should not have to spend valuable time and resources to file this suit today, but we have a duty to defend the prerogatives of the federal government and protect our Constitutional order.  We will do so with vigor. We are confident that we will prevail in this case -- because the facts are on our side.”

Read more
With net neutrality gone, carriers throttle YouTube, Netflix, other streamers

Following the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's decision to reverse its position on net neutrality under the administration of President Donald J. Trump, researchers are stepping in to monitor how web traffic is affected -- and the results are not surprising. New research from Northeastern University and the University of Massachusetts Amherst confirmed that video streamers may be the first to experience the effects of a mobile internet without net neutrality.

Researchers from the universities partnered with Wehe developer David Choffnes for the study. Wehe is an internet traffic-monitoring app. The published report reveals that YouTube is the largest target of throttling, but video streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and the NBC Sports app experienced similar speed degradation.

Read more
California’s pro-net neutrality bill awaits governor’s signature
senate overturns fcc net neutrality repeal chuck schumer nancy pelosi

California is closer than ever to restoring net neutrality. A bill to bring ease back into the hearts of California web surfers, SB-822, sailed through the state's legislative bodies and is now heading to the governor's desk for a signature.
Jerry Brown, who is a Democrat, has not said whether he intends to sign the bill — but Brown rarely comments on legislation before it arrives at his desk. By state law, the governor has 30 days to act on the legislation.
A bill enacting net neutrality protection would have important ramifications for the United States, since the U.S. Senate voted to reverse a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision to kill national net neutrality rules set in place under the Obama administration. The Congressional Review Act seeks to overturn the December 2017 decision, but it still must go through the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the FCC's quest to "restore internet freedom" is still slated to go live in June. 
California's bill aims to set net neutrality rules on a state level. The bill prohibits internet service providers from offering different quality of service levels outside specific conditions. It allows the state's Attorney General to investigate and take action against those service providers in violation of the prohibitions. 
According to Section 1776 of the bill, internet service providers cannot block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. Providers also cannot alter internet connections between devices and "lawful" sources, which would prevent throttling and paid fast lanes for specific media. The list goes on to include the ban of third-party paid prioritization, application-specific differential pricing, and more. 
Without rules, an internet service provider offering its own video streaming service could relegate Netflix and Hulu to "slow" lanes even if they provide better content. This bill, if passed, would prevent that type of prioritization. It would also prevent service providers from picking and choosing services that don't count toward the customer's data consumption. 
"Large ISPs such as AT&T don’t like this bill. They’ve mustered a series of absurd arguments that have been repeatedly rebutted. And yet, they came very close to convincing lawmakers to weaken the bill in their favor," the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said on Wednesday. 
Internet service providers like AT&T and Comcast don't want net neutrality reinforced because the rules will "cut into their bottom line." In other words, they won't be able to charge extra for prioritization stemming from faster lanes, unfiltered content, and throttle-free connections. Their argument, according to the EFF, is that if they can't generate revenue from those streams, internet subscription prices may rise. 
An argument can be made that internet service providers didn't practice content filtering, throttling, or paid fast lane access prior to the net neutrality rules. Many providers claim they won't change once the rules cease in June. But given how intensely they lobby against California's new bill and the effort to reverse the FCC's decision, activists can't help but worry about an internet without net neutrality. 
"It’s time for our federal lawmakers in the House of Representatives to follow the lead of the U.S. Senate and California State Senate, listen to their constituents, tech experts, and small business owners, and vote for the Congressional Review Act resolution,” says Evan Greer of digital rights group Fight for the Future. 
Updated on 9/01/2018: Updated with news that the bill had passed both legislative chambers and is awaiting Brown's signature. 

Read more