Court case

A Q&A with New York Times reporter Cecilia Kang. Why does the net neutrality fight matter? Many Americans have only one or possibly two options for home internet providers. Those companies can in theory decide whether we can view Netflix or YouTube crystal clear or if we see the pinwheel of death as those sites stutter.

In 2017, the broadband industry appeared to win its battle against net neutrality. Under the Trump administration, the US Federal Communications Commission rolled back rules that barred internet service providers from blocking or slowing down traffic to certain websites or charging some sites a fee for preferential treatment. Net neutrality was, effectively, dead. But the regulatory change turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory for telecom companies.

On Feb 23, Judge John Mendez of US District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected a telecommunications-industry challenge to California’s two-year-old net neutrality law, clearing the way for the state to begin enforcing the consumer protections. "I have heard that argument and I don't find it persuasive," Judge Mendez said. "It's going to fall on deaf ears. Everyone has been on their best behavior since 2018, waiting for whatever happened in the DC Circuit [court case over the FCC's repeal of net neutrality].

California may soon begin enforcing its first-in-the-nation net neutrality law after a federal judge ruled against broadband providers that had sought to scuttle the state’s open-Internet safeguards.

More fans of network neutrality rules have asked the Federal Communication Commission to return its bright-line rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization, saying eliminated those rules has negatively impacted connectivity at a time -- during the COVID-19 pandemic -- when connectivity is a key public interest priority.

The Biden administration has abandoned a Trump-era lawsuit that sought to block California's network neutrality law.

Public Knowledge filed a petition asking the Federal Communications Commission to reconsider the agency’s determination under Chairman Pai that its deregulatory agenda was more important than public safety, the infrastructure access necessary for broadband competition, or universal service.

As wireless providers move towards using data instead of voice calls, the Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF), which is responsible for offsetting the high cost of connecting Texans across the state, has reduced payments received by rural telephone providers by 66 percent.  In response to this decrease, rural telephone providers, which are now facing financial uncertainty, filed a suit in Travis County District Court against the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC), which oversees the fund.  The lawsuit requests that the PUC fully provide previously approved funds to rural telephone cus

The Supreme Court waded into a two-decade long debate over the extent to which the Federal Communications Commission can relax media ownership rules. At stake are recent FCC moves toward deregulation, allowing the common ownership of a newspaper and broadcast stations in the same market, as well as giving more leeway for media companies to own more than one TV and radio outlet in the same city.

Two judges on the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals have spent the past 17 years blocking a congressionally mandated modernization of antiquated broadcast-television regulations. The Supreme Court will hear an appeal on Jan 19, FCC v.