Summary
- A federal appeals court struck down the FCC’s attempt to revive net-neutrality regulations.
- The Sixth Circuit court ruled the FCC lacks authority to enforce anti-throttling/blocking rules for broadband providers.
- Supporters argue net neutrality preserves fair internet, while ISPs claim regulations stifle innovation.
The see-saw battle over net neutrality just tilted heavily in favor of ISPs, thanks to a federal appeals court decision. It’s a hit for the FCC and a feather in the cap of the upcoming Trump administration.
Related
How to delete yourself from the internet
Want to delete yourself from Google Search, social media, and the entire internet? Our guide gives you all the details with links to get started
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacks the authority to reinstate rules preventing broadband providers from throttling or blocking content (via Android Authority). The FCC voted in 2024 to bring back Obama-era net neutrality rules. These rules were repealed by President Donald Trump in 2017. President Joe Biden pushed for a revival of the rules through executive orders, but this latest court ruling puts an end to those efforts.
This is a blow to open internet advocates
The court’s ruling cites a recent Supreme Court decision that overturned the Chevron deference, a rule which previously allowed federal agencies to interpret vague laws. The FCC’s authority to regulate broadband providers as utilities is now severely limited without Chevron in place.
However, many supporters of net neutrality argue that these regulations are essential for maintaining a fair and open internet. These rules prevented internet service providers (ISPs) from favoring content based on how much the site owners, or the customers, paid. Proponents of net neutrality also highlight other key points, including:
- Blocking and filtering: In this scenario, an ISP blocks its customers from accessing websites with which it doesn’t agree politically, or which doesn’t pay the ISP to allow access.
- Internet fast lanes: This is when an ISP provides higher bandwidth to visitors of websites with whom it has a business relationship. For example, an online retailer could pay an ISP to give extra speeds to people who visit the website.
- Throttling: The opposite of an internet fast lane is throttling, when an ISP throttles data speeds to those sites which don’t pay it.
- Zero-rated service: This is when an ISP offers free internet access to preferred services, such as a social media network or e-commerce site.
- Healthy market competition: Internet access should be equal across ISPs, forcing them to compete on price.
ISPs claim net neutrality strangles a free market
Many, including most of the ISPs, argue that net neutrality regulations represent a massive government overreach into the private market, which in turn limits innovation and investment in internet technology. There’s also the argument that a one-size-fits-all approach does not account for the varying needs of different communities, and without the ability to manage their traffic, ISPs are less capable of managing network congestion. Finally, there’s the issue of the costs associated with doing business under net neutrality rules, which ISPs pass on to the consumer.
States like Washington, California, and Colorado have enacted their own versions of net neutrality regulations, which remain unaffected by this latest court ruling. One thing is clear: the debate over how the internet should be regulated, if at all, is far from settled.
