The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Federal Communication Commission’s net neutrality rules in Verizon v. FCC, a case that challenged the federal committee’s ability to regulate the Internet.
With this ruling, the FCC will no longer be able to coerce Internet providers to treat all websites the same, which means that “although the court’s decision has nothing to do with the policy or economics, the effect of the decision shifts the balance of power between content providers and service providers toward service providers,” according to Leland Beck of Federal Regulations Advisor.
This shift is not only a legal win for the telecommunications industry, but also an assertion of Verizon’s First Amendment right, says Dana Frix, partner at Chadbourne & Parke.
In a strange twist, Verizon finds that its right to control the Internet is in fact founded in the U.S. Constitution. Verizon likens itself to a TV broadcaster; and when consumers turn on their devices and seek to access the Internet, Verizon is essentially a “broadcaster” of information of its choosing. Therefore, it has the absolute right to determine what content consumers see. In legalese, Verizon claims it has a First Amendment right to control consumers’ experience of the Internet, and therefore it need not comply with even the “light touch” regulations.
This isn’t the first time that this court has sided with the telecommunications companies. The FCC created net neutrality in 2010 despite the D.C. court deciding that it could not regulate service providers in a case against Comcast.
What this new ruling means for the typical web users is that the future of the Internet may change with telecommunications companies and providers giving advantages to certain sites, writes Brad Chacos for PCWorld.
Net neutrality advocates fear that without rules in place, big companies like Netflix, Disney, and ESPN could gain advantage over competitors by paying ISPs to provide preferential treatment to their company’s data. For example, YouTube might pay extra so that its videos load faster than Hulu’s on the ISP’s network.
There are also concerns of tiered Internet access, but providers already have some control over what websites can be accesses through data caps.
Though there are fears the ruling will change the Internet forever, and not in a positive way, Mike Masnick of TechDirt notes that there are two ways to look at this ruling:
…we should be equally concerned about the FCC overstepping its bounds and mandate in regulating the internet. Because that opens up the opportunity for the FCC to regulate all sorts of aspects of the internet in dangerous ways. So, this ruling is both good and bad. It stops the FCC from overstepping its bounds… but opens up the opportunity for the telcos to sweep in and try to upset the basic concepts of the internet. It’s what happens now that becomes interesting. The court does leave open the possibility that the FCC could use other aspects of its mandate to establish net neutrality rules — where it has a much more firm legal footing. In other words, the court is telling the FCC basically: you can establish net neutrality rules if you do it correctly.
While the long-term effects for customers can only be speculated, the FCC received the biggest blow with the ruling undermining its future decisions. “An adverse ruling would leave unanswered questions about whether the FCC has any authority to regulate broadband services,” writes Aaron George in Focus on Regulation.The net neutrality regulation itself may be “unsalvageable” because it shows an economic preference.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler vowed to continue the fight for net neutrality and looks towards the potential of an appeal.