Regulatory classification

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.

In the long-running net neutrality debate, a key assumption has been that broadband and broadband Internet access service are “jurisdictionally interstate.” But are they really? And what does that mean? In practice, the interstate assumption has meant that important decisions about broadband law and policy are made almost exclusively by the federal government. The “who decides” question took on new immediacy in 2017, when the Federal Communications Commission gutted federal net neutrality rules, and then attempted to preempt the states from adopting their own.

Global standards ensure that things like smartphones and laptops — and even the internet itself — work across borders. "Standard bodies are essential to ensure interoperability which is critical to achieving 'economies of scale' and technology reach the masses," wireless consultant Chetan Sharma told Axios.  "Geopolitical tensions have a real prospect of splintering the Internet and the wireless industry and the emergence of completely decoupled supply chains and ecosystems around the world," Sharma said.

US officials are stepping up a campaign to defeat a Russian candidate for a United Nations agency that could determine how much control governments have over the internet. Russia's designs on the little-known agency raise the stakes for what the Russian government's vision of the internet could mean for the rest of the world, especially following its