Regulatory classification

Senators Edward Markey (D-MA) andRon Wyden (D-OR) along with Representative Doris Matsui (D-CA-06) introduced the Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act, legislation that would accurately classify broadband internet access as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, giving the Federal Communications Commission the appropriate authority to reinstate net neutrality protections. The COVID-19 pandemic has made clear the present need to promote an accessible and just broadband future, with students having spent upwards of two years studying online, entrep

Should higher-than-market rates be allowed on a broadband network that is being subsidized with public funding? Should an agency that awards grants or other broadband subsidies somehow insist that broadband rates are somehow tied to market rates? That’s a lot harder question to answer than you might think because the question implies that these agencies have the power to regulate or cap broadband prices in grant areas. The Ajit Pai Federal Communications Commission voluntarily gave away the right for the FCC to regulate broadband rates when it gave up Title II authority.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is investing $401 million to provide access to high-speed internet for 31,000 rural residents and businesses in 11 states, part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to investing in rural infrastructure and affordable high-speed internet for all.

For most people, the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency was about environmental policy and what the Environmental Protection Agency can still do to cut carbon emissions. For a smaller subset, mostly lawyers, W. VA v. EPA was an important (but confusing) administrative law case what we will spend a bunch of time arguing about how to apply to agencies generally.

The Biden Administration's loss in a Supreme Court ruling involving the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate power plants could be a victory for internet service providers (ISPs)' arguments that the Federal Communications Commission was outside its regulatory lane when it reclassified internet access as a Title II common carrier service subject to open access and other requirements and imposed new neutrality rules.

A state court judge in Ohio is allowing Attorney General David Yost to proceed with an effort to prohibit Google from prioritizing its services or products in search results. In a ruling issued May 24, Delaware County Common Pleas Court Judge James Schuck declined to dismiss Yost's claim that Google's search engine is a “common carrier.” “The court believes, at this stage of the proceeding, that the state should have the ability to take discovery, develop its case, and present evidence to support its claim,” Schuck wrote.

A large, bipartisan majority of Americans (73%) support reinstating net neutrality, including 82% of Democrats, 65% of Republicans, and 68% of Independents. Support for net neutrality, while very high now, is a bit lower than in 2017 and 2018 when net neutrality was in place voters were asked about repealing it (83% and 86% respectively).  This drop may be due to what social scientists

Lobbying groups representing broadband internet access service providers—including ACA Connects, NCTA, CTIA and USTelecom—dropped their challenge of a federal district court's ruling upholding California's net neutrality law. The ISPs had already lost a federal district court challenge to the law and two appeals court efforts to block enforcement. The suit was dismissed without prejudice, which means ISPs could refile it if they chose.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals will not reconsider its decision in January to uphold California's net neutrality law. California's 2018 law barred internet service providers from blocking or throttling traffic, or offering paid fast lanes, but it only took effect in 2021.