Federal Appeals Court Overturns FCC’s Net Neutrality Regulations

A federal appellate court nullified the Federal Communications Commission’s significant net neutrality regulations on Thursday, concluding a nearly two-decade-long undertaking to supervise broadband providers as utilities.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, located in Cincinnati, declared that the F.C.C. lacked the jurisdiction to re-establish rules that barred broadband providers from throttling or obstructing access to internet content. In its ruling, a panel of three judges referenced a Supreme Court verdict from June, referred to as Loper Bright, which overturned a 1984 legal standard that prioritized government agencies concerning regulations.

“Implementing Loper Bright allows us to conclude the F.C.C.’s oscillations,” the court determined.

The ruling effectively ended the Biden administration’s signature tech policy, which garnered passionate backing from consumer advocacy groups and technology leaders like Google and prompted strong opposition from telecom giants like Comcast and AT&T.

In April, the F.C.C. had voted to reinstate net neutrality regulations, which extend federal oversight of broadband providers and work to safeguard consumer access to the internet. These regulations were first enacted nearly ten years ago during the Obama administration, aimed at stopping internet service providers like Verizon or Comcast from blocking or downgrading the delivery of services from competitors such as Netflix and YouTube. The regulations were revoked under President-elect Donald J. Trump during his initial term, yet persisted as a divisive partisan topic that contrasted tech giants with broadband providers.

Thursday’s ruling effectively brings closure to the ongoing struggle. Brendan Carr, who has been appointed by Mr. Trump as the new F.C.C. chair, has been a vocal opponent of net neutrality. The court’s deference to the Loper case in its ruling could also signal more legal challenges aimed at dismantling federal regulations at the F.C.C. and other agencies.

The court’s reasoning “settles a matter that incorrectly consumed a large amount of attention in tech and telecom for the past two decades,” remarked Evan Swarztrauber, a previous policy adviser to Mr. Carr.

In a statement, Mr. Carr expressed that he was “satisfied” with the ruling and that “the endeavors to dismantle the Biden administration’s regulatory overreach will persist.”

The court’s ruling does not influence state laws regarding net neutrality in California, Washington, and Colorado. Democrats at the F.C.C. urged Congress on Thursday to establish laws fostering net neutrality, indicating that the topic may continue to simmer.

“Consumers nationwide have repeatedly informed us that they desire an internet that is rapid, accessible, and equitable,” stated Jessica Rosenworcel, the F.C.C. chairwoman and a Democrat who advocated for the re-establishment of the regulations. “It is evident that Congress must now respond to their appeals, undertake the responsibility for net neutrality, and enshrine open internet principles in federal legislation.”

Judge Richard Allen Griffin, who authored Thursday’s ruling, noted that the panel of judges recognized that the internet is complex and that the F.C.C. “possesses considerable expertise in supervising ‘this technical and intricate field.’”

However, he stated that the F.C.C.’s interpretation of its authority to categorize broadband internet service similarly to phone service exceeded the legal definitions set forth in the Telecommunications Act.

“The F.C.C. lacks the legislative authority to enforce its desired net-neutrality policies,” he remarked.

The term net neutrality was introduced in 2003 by Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University, who cautioned that broadband internet service providers might act as gatekeepers of internet access and could block or impose charges for access to certain content.

This concept was advocated by Google, Facebook, and Netflix, with these companies lobbying the F.C.C. to create rules that would prevent preferential treatment of content by internet service providers.

In 2010, the F.C.C., under the Democratic leadership of Julius Genachowski, devised the initial proposals for net neutrality regulations, capturing significant public interest. The proposed rules incited street protests, a flood of email comments, and even threats of violence directed at commissioners who opposed the rules.

The intricate and technical nature of the issue resonated politically with progressives who viewed the regulations as a vital counterbalance to corporate dominance and a movement to maintain an open and fair internet.

Conversely, cable and telecom companies resisted the regulations primarily due to their perception of them as regulatory overreach. They feared that categorizing broadband providers as “common carriers,” similar to phone companies, would pave the way for utility-style regulation and governmental price control.

Broadband providers welcomed the court’s ruling on Thursday. “Our struggle to prevent the government’s unwarranted internet acquisition has culminated in a significant win,” stated Grant Spellmeyer, the chief executive of a small cable trade organization, ACA Connects.

In recent times, the issue has diminished substantially in its public momentum. Frustration has shifted towards social media platforms for their dissemination of misinformation and negative impacts on young users. Nevertheless, the conflict over the regulations persisted, with each administration alternately instituting or rescinding the regulations along partisan lines.

“The market no longer perceives it as a major concern and hasn’t for quite some time,” remarked Blair Levin, a former chief of staff at the F.C.C. and an adviser to NewStreet Research.