Net Neutrality

On January 27, 2022, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) that would require internet service providers (“ISPs”) to display labels disclosing certain service information, including prices, introductory rates, data allowances, broadband speeds, and network management practices.  Notably, the NPRM proposes to adopt—with some modifications—the labels developed by an advisory committee and published by the Commission in a 2016 Public Notice.
Continue Reading FCC Proposes to Require Broadband “Nutrition Labels”; Comments Due March 9

Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) circulated a new Net Neutrality Order for consideration at its October meeting.  This draft Order on Remand does not mark a change in the FCC’s Net Neutrality policy; rather, it responds to several issues raised by the D.C. Circuit in Mozilla v. FCC, which reviewed the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order.

The draft Order on Remand addresses the points raised by the D.C. Circuit in Mozilla but otherwise affirms the outcome of the Restoring Internet Freedom Order.  That Order rolled back Obama-era Net Neutrality regulations and largely deregulated broadband Internet service provider practices.Continue Reading Order Responding to Net Neutrality Court Decision Circulated for Consideration at FCC’s October Meeting

A little over a month ago, the deadline for appealing the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Mozilla v. FCC expired.  The Mozilla decision upheld the FCC’s 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order (“Order”), which rolled back Obama-era net neutrality regulations to largely deregulate broadband internet service provider (“ISP”) practices.  No party sought Supreme Court review
Continue Reading The Legal Debate Over Net Neutrality Shifts to State Laws

In a long-awaited decision, today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a January 2018 decision by the FCC to repeal most net neutrality rules and classify broadband as an unregulated “information service,” despite requiring the FCC to conduct further proceedings to justify certain aspects of its decision.  At the same time, the Court found that the FCC exceeded its authority in attempting to preempt any state net neutrality or similar laws regulating broadband.
Continue Reading Federal Appellate Court Largely Upholds FCC’s Order Repealing Most Net Neutrality Rules and De-Regulating Broadband; Holds that FCC Does Not Have Authority to Preempt All State Net Neutrality Laws

Since the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) repealed the 2015 net neutrality rules last year, federal and state lawmakers have debated how to address the issue of net neutrality going forward.  We previously have discussed some of the state net neutrality laws that were enacted, including California’s law, which currently is on hold pending the resolution of Mozilla Corp v. FCC, the lawsuit challenging the FCC’s order that repealed net neutrality rules.  Oral argument for this case was held in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on February 1, 2019.
Continue Reading Net Neutrality Update: House Hearing and Proposed Legislation

In exchange for a stay of the proceedings in both United States v. California and American Cable Association v. Becerra, California has agreed not to enforce its new net neutrality law, SB 822, pending the resolution of Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, the lawsuit challenging the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order (“Order”).  The Order had repealed Obama-era net neutrality rules.  SB 822, which we previously discussed here, was scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2019, and contains the most stringent net neutrality requirements of any state.  When the law was passed on September 30, the U.S. Department of Justice immediately sued California, arguing it was preempted by the FCC’s Order.
Continue Reading Net Neutrality Update: California and the United States Agree to Stay Further Proceedings Pending Review of FCC Order

On September 30, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill to apply net neutrality rules to Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) operating in that state.  California is not the first state to enact legislation on net neutrality, but its bill contains the most stringent requirements yet.  The Trump Administration and multiple ISPs have sued to prevent the new law from going into effect, arguing that it conflicts with federal law.  The first hearing on the legal challenge will take place on November 14.
Continue Reading California Adopts Net Neutrality Law; Court Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 14

On December 14, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) voted along party lines to adopt a 210-page Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order (the “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” or “Order”) geared towards overhauling the net neutrality framework established during the Obama administration in 2015 (the “2015 Order”).  On February 22nd, the Order was officially published in the Federal Register — kicking off the period for filing of court challenges to the FCC’s decision and for efforts by Democrats in Congress to signal dissent through passing a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act.

Against the backdrop of these actions at the federal level, for the past few months several states have taken matters into their own hands and begun proposing their own ways to restore the 2015 Order’s net neutrality rules within their borders.  Such efforts, even if successful at the state level, will likely be met in the courts by the Restoring Internet Freedom Order’s explicit statement that the Order preempts all “inconsistent state and local regulations.” 
Continue Reading States Battle to Resurrect Net Neutrality Rules

On 27 October 2015, the European Parliament adopted the new Telecoms Single Market legislation without a number of proposed amendments relating to net neutrality.  As a result, while the Regulation requires Internet service providers (“ISPs”) to “treat all traffic equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference, independently of its sender or receiver, content, application or service, or terminal equipment,” it provides for the following exceptions to this principle:

  1. ISPs may offer “specialised services” (e.g., IPTV, high-definition videoconferencing and healthcare services) to the extent that this does not have an impact on the general Internet quality.
  2. ISPs may decide not to count capacity used in connection with certain sites or applications towards a consumer’s capacity usage (“zero rating”), subject to a non-discrimination obligation.
  3. ISPs may implement reasonable traffic management measures based on the “different technical quality of service requirements of specific categories of traffic.”  These measures should not be based on commercial considerations.
  4. ISPs will be able to impose traffic management measures to prevent “impending network congestion”.

The four rejected amendments related to these exceptions: network discrimination, equal treatment of all Internet traffic, the potential role of ISPs as gatekeepers, and the use of traffic management other than in connection with congestion.Continue Reading Rules on Net Neutrality and Roaming Charges Finally Adopted

A federal appeals court struck down key parts of the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order in a Jan. 14 decision, ruling that the FCC’s “net neutrality” rules improperly regulate broadband providers like “common carriers” — such as providers of traditional telephone service — even though the FCC has classified broadband providers as not subject to common-carrier obligations.   Importantly, however, the court held that the FCC has direct authority to impose restrictions on broadband providers as long as such rules do not amount to common carrier regulation.

The FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order generally prohibited both “fixed” and mobile broadband providers from blocking users’ access to lawful online content and services, with fixed providers — such as cable companies — subject to tighter restrictions than mobile operators.  In addition, the rules barred fixed broadband providers from “unreasonably” discriminating between different kinds of Internet traffic.

The FCC’s asserted goal was to prevent service providers from using their control of consumers’ broadband connections to prevent or discourage subscribers from using online voice, video, or other services that compete with the broadband provider’s own offerings.  The Commission concluded that such efforts would impair the spread of broadband, and the FCC found preventing such impairment was one of the mandates of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.   Verizon challenged the FCC’s rules as unnecessary, lacking in a statutory basis, and contrary to the Communications Act requirement that only traditional telephone companies can be subject to common carrier regulation.

In Tuesday’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the FCC’s judgments on a number of points, including that the rules were a rational policy tool to promote broadband and that the rules had a statutory basis in Section 706 of the 1996 Act, which heretofore had been characterized by the FCC as simply hortatory.  However, the court concluded that the anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules violated statutory prohibitions on imposing common carrier rules on non-carriers.   The court upheld a separate rule requiring broadband providers to disclose their network management practices.
Continue Reading Court Strikes Net Neutrality Rules, Leaves Path for Other Broadband Regulations