United States Telecom Association v. FCC (2016)

Last updated

United States Telecom Association v. FCC
Seal of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Full case name United States Telecom Association v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America
ArguedDecember 4, 2015
DecidedJune 14, 2016
Citation825 F. 3d 674
Holding
The FCC has the authority, under the Communications Act of 1934 to reclassify broadband Internet from "information services" to "telecommunications services" and to enforce differing regulations accordingly.
Case opinions
Majority David S. Tatel, Sri Srinivasan
Concur/dissent Stephen F. Williams

United States Telecom Association v. FCC, 825 F. 3d 674 (D.C. Cir., 2016), was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upholding an action by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the previous year in which broadband Internet was reclassified as a "telecommunications service" under the Communications Act of 1934, after which Internet service providers (ISPs) were required to follow common carrier regulations. [1]

Contents

This decision was a victory for network neutrality, in which Internet service providers were prohibited from discriminating against certain content and applications or prioritizing others. [2] However, the ruling became largely moot due to actions taken by later leaders of the FCC. [3]

Background

Back in 2007, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) censured Comcast for violating the commission's network neutrality principles when it interfered with its users' access to peer-to-peer networking applications. This resulted in the court challenge Comcast Corp. v. FCC in 2010, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the FCC did not have ancillary jurisdiction over the content delivery choices of Internet service providers under the language of the Communications Act of 1934. [4]

In that ruling, the Circuit Court hinted that it would accept separate jurisdictional arguments under other provisions of the 1934 Communications Act or the 1996 Telecommunications Act. [5] This prompted the FCC to establish new rules regarding non-discriminatory delivery of Internet content. [6] The updated rules were released later that year as the FCC Open Internet Order of 2010. These rules would forbid ISPs from blocking or slowing online services. [7] [8] The industry was unhappy with those new rules as well, with Verizon taking the lead in another court challenge, requesting judicial review of the Open Internet Order, again at the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, with a charge that the FCC had again surpassed its regulatory authority. [9] [10]

In Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC in 2014, the circuit court ruled that the FCC could not compel ISPs to refrain from discrimination because such a regulation could only be enforced against entities that the commission had classified as "telecommunications services" under the provisions of the 1934 Communications Act, while the commission had already classified cable broadband Internet, and later wireless Internet, as an "information service" per this process as far back as 2002. [11] However, the court hinted that the FCC could require Internet service providers to exercise network neutrality by reclassifying them as "telecommunications services" that were in turn required to act as common carriers. [11]

In 2014, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler responded to that decision by stating that the commission would not appeal the Verizon ruling, but would instead take the court's advice on reclassification of Internet service providers in the interests of non-discriminatory content delivery. [12] [13] In 2015, the FCC reclassified Internet service providers as "telecommunications services" under the Communications Act of 1934, as had been suggested by the judges in the Verizon ruling. [14]

This led to yet another Circuit court challenge from the industry. The United States Telecom Association (USTA) filed suit against the FCC immediately after the reclassification, this time claiming arbitrary and capricious regulatory changes in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the Commission lacked the statutory authority to enact the reclassification. [1]

Circuit court ruling

The circuit court held that the Federal Communications Commission has the statutory authority to classify or reclassify regulated technologies and companies within the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934. The commission's previous classification of cable modem Internet service had been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as within its regulatory authority in National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services (2005); that ruling was in turn supported by Chevron deference in which courts refer to an agency's subject matter expertise. [15]

In the present case, the court found that the FCC had provided adequate explanation and legal justification for its 2015 decision to reclassify broadband Internet as a "telecommunications service", and that the petitioners (USTA) failed to deliver compelling arguments on how this was beyond the commission's authority. The USTA's argument about violation of the Administrative Procedure Act rested on that statute's requirement for "sufficient factual detail and rationale for the rule to permit interested parties to comment meaningfully", and the court rejected USTA's claim that the Commission failed to honor either of those requirements. For similar reasons, the court also rejected a USTA claim of a violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. [1]

As a result, the circuit court rejected the USTA's arguments and upheld the legality of the FCC's reclassification decision. [1] Thus, Internet service providers would henceforth be forbidden from discriminating against any content or applications as delivered over their networks.

Impact and subsequent developments

The decision was immediately described as a victory for network neutrality, as well as the Obama administration and then-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. [16] The new non-discrimination rules were set to go into effect later in 2016, [17] but were put on hold while the ISP industry attempted an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeal request, brought by several telecommunications firms and ultimately falling under the case name Berninger v. Federal Communications Commission, was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court in 2018 and the circuit court decision was allowed to stand. [18] [19] Justice Brett Kavanaugh abstained due to his previous involvement with the case in the lower courts. [20]

However, by that time an appeal was moot because in 2017 the FCC, now under the leadership of Ajit Pai during the Donald Trump administration, had already voted to overturn its 2015 reclassification and return to the previous state of affairs regarding regulation of ISPs. [21] That regulatory decision was framed as "Restoring Internet Freedom" [3] and itself attracted widespread controversy as an illustration of the FCC's inconsistent stance on network neutrality based on its shifting leadership and political outlook. [17] [22] That action by the FCC was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court, again as within the realm of the commission's authority, in Mozilla Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission (2019). [23] In 2024, the Joe Biden administration and the then-current leadership of the FCC expressed support for yet another reversal, and restoration of the 2015 reclassification decision that was upheld in the United States Telecom Association ruling, [24] though that did not happen during Biden's time in office due to threats of further lawsuits from the telecommunications industry. [25]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Net neutrality</span> Principle that Internet service providers should treat all data equally

Network neutrality, often referred to as net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, offering users and online content providers consistent transfer rates regardless of content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication. Net neutrality was advocated for in the 1990s by the presidential administration of Bill Clinton in the United States. Clinton's signing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934, set a worldwide example for net neutrality laws and the regulation of ISPs.

Bandwidth throttling consists in the limitation of the communication speed, of the ingoing (received) or outgoing (sent) data in a network node or in a network device such as computers and mobile phones.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on how to regulate Internet service providers are eligible for Chevron deference, in which the judiciary defers to an administrative agency's expertise under its governing statutes. While the case concerned routine regulatory processes at the FCC and applied to interpretations of the Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996, the ruling has become an important precedent on the matter of regulating network neutrality in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NCTA (association)</span> American telecommunications organization

NCTA, formerly known as the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), is a trade association representing the broadband and cable television industries in the United States. As of 2011, NCTA represented more than 90% of the U.S. cable market, over 200 cable networks, and various equipment suppliers and service providers to the cable industry.

In the United States, net neutrality—the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should make no distinctions between different kinds of content on the Internet, and to not discriminate based on such distinctions—has been an issue of contention between end-users and ISPs since the 1990s. With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge different rates for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block specific types of content, while charging consumers different rates for that content.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet in the United States</span>

The Internet in the United States grew out of the ARPANET, a network sponsored by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense during the 1960s. The Internet in the United States of America in turn provided the foundation for the worldwide Internet of today.

Net neutrality in Canada is a debated issue, but not to the degree of partisanship in other nations, such as the United States, in part because of its federal regulatory structure and pre-existing supportive laws that were enacted decades before the debate arose. In Canada, Internet service providers (ISPs) generally provide Internet service in a neutral manner. Some notable incidents otherwise have included Bell Canada's throttling of certain protocols and Telus's censorship of a specific website critical of the company.

<i>Comcast Corp. v. FCC</i> 2010 US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia case

Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642, is a case at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia holding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have ancillary jurisdiction over the content delivery choices of Internet service providers, under the language of the Communications Act of 1934. In so holding, the Court vacated a 2008 order issued by the FCC that asserted jurisdiction over network management policies and censured Comcast from interfering with its subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software. The case has been regarded as an important precedent on whether the FCC can regulate network neutrality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marvin Ammori</span> American activist and lawyer

Marvin Ammori is an American lawyer, civil liberties advocate, and scholar best known for his work on network neutrality and Internet freedom issues. He is Chief Legal Officer of Uniswap.

<i>United States Telecom Association v. FCC</i> (2004)

United States Telecom Association v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, is the court case in which the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Federal Communications Commission's Triennial Review Order (TRO). The court's decision is based on the Telecommunications Act of 1996 section 251 which defines unbundled network elements (UNEs) for incumbent local exchange carriers and competitive local exchange carriers.

The Federal Communications Commission Open Internet Order of 2010 is a set of regulations that move towards the establishment of the internet neutrality concept. Some opponents of net neutrality believe such internet regulation would inhibit innovation by preventing providers from capitalizing on their broadband investments and reinvesting that money into higher quality services for consumers. Supporters of net neutrality argue that the presence of content restrictions by network providers represents a threat to individual expression and the rights of the First Amendment. Open Internet strikes a balance between these two camps by creating a compromised set of regulations that treats all internet traffic in "roughly the same way". In Verizon v. FCC, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated portions of the order that the court determined could only be applied to common carriers.

Internet bottlenecks are places in telecommunication networks in which internet service providers (ISPs), or naturally occurring high use of the network, slow or alter the network speed of the users and/or content producers using that network. A bottleneck is a more general term for a system that has been reduced or slowed due to limited resources or components. The bottleneck occurs in a network when there are too many users attempting to access a specific resource. Internet bottlenecks provide artificial and natural network choke points to inhibit certain sets of users from overloading the entire network by consuming too much bandwidth. Theoretically, this will lead users and content producers through alternative paths to accomplish their goals while limiting the network load at any one time. Alternatively, internet bottlenecks have been seen as a way for ISPs to take advantage of their dominant market-power increasing rates for content providers to push past bottlenecks. The United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has created regulations stipulating that artificial bottlenecks are in direct opposition to a free and open Internet.

Net bias is the counter-principle to net neutrality, which indicates differentiation or discrimination of price and the quality of content or applications on the Internet by ISPs. Similar terms include data discrimination, digital redlining, and network management.

<i>Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC</i> (2014)

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 740 F.3d 623, was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacating portions of the FCC Open Internet Order of 2010, which the court determined could only be applied to common carriers and not to Internet service providers. The case was initiated by Verizon, which would have been subjected to the proposed FCC rules, though they had not yet gone into effect. The case has been regarded as an important precedent on whether the FCC can regulate network neutrality.

Net neutrality law refers to laws and regulations which enforce the principle of net neutrality.

"Net Neutrality" is the first segment devoted to net neutrality in the United States of the HBO news satire television series Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. It aired for 13 minutes on June 1, 2014, as part of the fifth episode of Last Week Tonight's first season.

Net neutrality is the principle that governments should mandate Internet service providers to treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

<i>Mozilla Corp. v. FCC</i> 2019 American court case

Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F. 3d 1 was a ruling the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2019 related to net neutrality in the United States. The case centered on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s decision in 2017 to rollback its prior 2015 Open Internet Order, reclassifying Internet services as an information service rather than as a common carrier, deregulating principles of net neutrality that had been put in place with the 2015 order. The proposed rollback had been publicly criticized during the open period of discussion, and following the FCC's issuing of the rollback, several states and Internet companies sued the FCC. These cases were consolidated into the one led by the Mozilla Corporation.

<i>AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland</i>

AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The ruling was an important early precedent on the regulation of local cable broadband networks, with the court finding that Federal Communications Commission regulations supersede those of local authorities.The ruling has also been cited as a precedent in network neutrality disputes.

<i>Tennessee v. FCC</i> US Court of Appeals 6th Circuit ruling

Tennessee v. Federal Communications Commission, 832 F.3d 597 (2016), was a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, holding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have the authority to preempt states from enforcing "anti-expansion" statutes that prohibit local municipal broadband networks from being expanded into nearby communities.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 US Telecom Association v. FCC, 825 F. 3d 674 (D.C. Cir., 2016).
  2. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). apps.fcc.gov. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 4, 2016. Retrieved January 17, 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  3. 1 2 Lodenback, Tanza (December 14, 2017). "FCC Voted to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules. This Is What It Means for Your Internet Bill". Inc. Magazine . Retrieved November 6, 2022.
  4. ↑ Circuit Judge Tatel (April 6, 2010). "Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642" (pdf). United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
  5. ↑ Tatel, Judge. "Comcast Corp. v. FCC, at 30 (D.C. Cir. 2010)" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Retrieved February 12, 2013.
  6. ↑ "Net Neutrality at the FCC: A Critique of the Legal Reasoning of its Net Neutrality Order". January 10, 2011. Archived from the original on January 17, 2011. Retrieved March 16, 2011.
  7. ↑ FCC. "In The Manner Of Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices" (PDF). FCC. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  8. ↑ "FCC Passes Compromise Net Neutrality Rules", WIRED (December 21, 2010)
  9. ↑ "Verizon Sues F.C.C. to Overturn Order on Blocking Web Sites", The New York Times, January 20, 2011
  10. ↑ "Verizon Files Appeal in Federal Court Regarding FCC Net Neutrality Order" Verizon's statement (January 20, 2011)
  11. 1 2 Verizon v. FCC, 740 F. 3d 623 (D.C. Cir., 2014).
  12. ↑ Wheeler, Tom. "STATEMENT BY FCC CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER ON THE FCC'S OPEN INTERNET RULES FEBRUARY 19, 2014". FCC. Retrieved February 20, 2014.
  13. ↑ Brodkin, Jon (February 19, 2014). "FCC won't appeal Verizon ruling, will regulate 'Net on "case-by-case basis"". Ars Technica. Retrieved February 20, 2014.
  14. ↑ Ruiz, Rebecca R.; Lohr, Steve (February 26, 2015). "F.C.C. Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved November 6, 2022.
  15. ↑ National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services , 545 U.S. 967 (2005).
  16. ↑ Selyukh, Alina (June 14, 2016). "U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Net Neutrality Rules In Full". NPR. Retrieved November 6, 2022.
  17. 1 2 Terry, Christopher; Memmel, Scott; Turacek, Ashley (2019). "Lost in a Novelty Mug: U. S. Telecom, the FCC, and Policy Resolution for Net Neutrality". Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal. 41 (1): 1–34 – via HeinOnline.
  18. ↑ Brodkin, Jon (November 5, 2018). "Supreme Court rejects industry challenge of 2015 net neutrality rules". Ars Technica . Retrieved November 5, 2018.
  19. ↑ Clark, Drew (November 6, 2018). "The Supreme Court Finally Says It Won't Reconsider Old Net Neutrality Case". Broadband Breakfast. Retrieved November 6, 2022.
  20. ↑ Williams, Pete; Amiri, Farnoush (November 5, 2018). "U.S. Supreme Court declines net neutrality appeal". NBC News. Retrieved November 6, 2022.
  21. ↑ Howe, Amy (November 5, 2018). "Divided court denies review in "net neutrality" cases". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved November 5, 2018.
  22. ↑ Jordan, Scptt (January 7, 2019). "The FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom Order is Ignorant of and Conflicts With the Internet's Architecture". Benton Foundation. Retrieved November 6, 2022.
  23. ↑ Mozilla Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission, 940 F. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir., 2019).
  24. ↑ Patel, Nilay (November 3, 2022). "The mystery of Biden's deadlocked FCC". The Verge. Retrieved November 6, 2022.
  25. ↑ Hendel, John (July 7, 2024). "Big Telecom Guns for a Major Biden Policy". Politico . Retrieved November 15, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.