Network Neutrality

Broadband providers want to avoid net neutrality because it comes with more expansive federal oversight. But one trade group for Internet Service Providers and state officials told judges that it comes with at least one big benefit: backup from the government in negotiations with utility pole owners. The Federal Communications Commission is currently trying to keep alive its net neutrality rules, which would reclassify broadband as a telecom service subject to common carrier regulations. Broadband trade associations challenging the move in court convinced a panel of the U.S.

In issuing a temporary stay of the Federal Communications Commission 2024 Net Neutrality order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has gone beyond recent teachings of the Supreme Court to erroneously block exercise of regulatory authority that Congress clearly intended the FCC to exercise. From the Federal Reserve Board to the Federal Trade Commission and beyond, expert agencies have been created as a means for Congress to ensure that durable legislative principles keep up with the times. The current Supreme Court seems not to share that view.

Internet service providers (ISPs) asked the US Supreme Court to strike down a New York law that requires broadband providers to offer $15-per-month service to people with low incomes. Although ISPs were recently able to block the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules, this petition shows the firms are worried about states stepping into the regulatory vacuum with various kinds of laws targeting broadband prices and practices. A broadband-industry victory over federal regulation could bolster the authority of New York and other states to regulate broadband.

The Biden regulatory blitz continues, but courts are beginning to do their job to stop the biggest legal overreaches. A Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel blocked the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rule, citing the Supreme Court’s major questions doctrine. Welcome to the post-Chevron world. “An agency may issue regulations only to the extent that Congress permits it,” the court writes.

Net neutrality is officially on hold after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the rule from taking effect. The court granted a stay, extending an earlier temporary pause. This time, net neutrality will be blocked until the court says otherwise after reviewing the petitions from broadband providers who opposed the rule.

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote overturned the landmark decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, sharply limiting the authority of federal administrative agencies including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). After the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, it will be easier to challenge and overturn agency decisions, and federal agencies will be more hesitant to adopt new regulations absent clear Congressional direction.

On July 12, a federal court in Ohio delivered a temporary setback to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) plans to enforce new net neutrality regulations, halting their implementation until at least August 5. The ruling by the U.S.

The telecommunications industry has unleashed a barrage of lawsuits designed to block a major policy goal of the Biden administration, a new internet-fairness regime it hopes to lock down ahead of the November election. The conflict is likely to drag on through the rest of 2024, showcasing the kind of behind-the-scenes Washington fight that can flare in an election year as a White House tries to cement its legacy. The suits opened a new front in the battle over “net neutrality,” a policy the Federal Communications Commission voted to adopt in April.

On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a bedrock principle of administrative law called the Chevron doctrine. The vehicle was an opinion for two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce.

The Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules will go into effect July 22, unless the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals places a stay on the rules. Several different groups have filed lawsuits, claiming that the FCC broke the law when it decided to reclassify broadband providers under Title II of the Communications Act.