Internet providers must treat all internet traffic the same regardless of source."
Texas Insider Report: WASHINGTON D.C. This ruling is a victory for consumers and innovators who deserve unfettered access to the entire web and it ensures the internet remains a platform for unparalleled innovation
free expression and economic growth" said Tom Wheeler chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) praising the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 ruling upholding the FCCs net neutrality rules to
make internet service providers treat all web traffic equally delivering a major defeat to cable and telephone companies.
The commission argued it is trying to prohibit broadband providers from blocking or throttling consumers traffic by requiring tiered service at different prices. The federal appeals court upheld a White House-supported effort that was backed by consumer groups across the country.
The consumer groups and President Barack Obama have backed the FCCs ruling as being essential to prevent broadband providers from blocking or degrading internet traffic. The telecom industry heavily criticized the rules as burdensome and unnecessary regulation which Texas Sen. Ted Cruz once labeling it Obamacare for the Internet."
For years activists businesses politicians and regulators have debated how ISPs or Internet Service Providers should be treated. The ISPs want less regulation so they have more freedom to choose how they package and sell their services. President Barack Obama and major tech companies argued that ISPs should be treated more like the nations telephone companies which cannot unjustly
discriminate when providing services.
Critically the D.C. Circuit on Tuesday rejected each and every one of the arguments advanced by the telecom and broadband providers against the new rules including a shot-in-the-dark 1st Amendment argument that sought to cast the regulation as an impermissible infringement on the companies speech.
Because a broadband provider does not and is not understood by users to speak when providing neutral access to internet content as common carriage the First Amendment poses no bar to the open internet rules" the court said.
Big internet service providers such as AT&T Verizon Time Warner Cable and Comcast argued the rules will chill investment in network infrastructure. AT&T and CenturyLink along with cable wireless and telecom trade groups filed the lawsuit to overturn the order.
AT&T immediately announced it would appeal the ruling saying its always expected the issue to be decided by the Supreme Court. Several industry trade groups are expected to join the effort.
The court decision marks a victory for FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler who led the agencys Democratic majority in approving the rules in February 2015 over the objections of the agencys two GOP commissioners.
After a decade of debate and legal battles todays ruling affirms the Commissions ability to enforce the strongest possible internet protections both on fixed and mobile networks that will ensure the internet remains open now and in the future" the FCC chairman said.
In the majority opinion written by appeals court judges David Tatel Sri Srinivasan the judges said the FCCs approach was bolstered by how people view the internet today. Justice Stephen Williams was the descenting vote on th e panel..
These conclusions about consumer perception find extensive support in the record and together justify the Commissions decision they wrote.
The majority also let stand the FCCs decision to apply net neutrality rules to the wireless internet citing the rapidly growing and virtually universal use of mobile broadband service." Thats a critical feature of the rules since many people today access the web through smartphones.
Williams the lone dissenter said he agreed the FCC has the authority to change how it regulates broadband providers but said the agency didnt provide enough reasons doing so.
Congressional Democrats cheered the court decision as a win for consumers and free speech with Bernie Sanders tweeting that it will help ensure we dont turn over our democracy to the highest bidder. Republicans criticized the opinion and some GOP lawmakers reiterated calls for legislation to undo the FCCs order and create rules that are less burdensome to industry.
But public interest groups involved in the net neutrality battle urged industry and Republicans to give up the fight.
The people have spoken the courts have spoken and this should be the last word on net neutrality Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron said in a statement. Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai who voted against the net neutrality order said big cable and telecom firms should keep pursuing the case in court.
I continue to believe that these regulations are unlawful and I hope that the parties challenging them will continue the legal fight" Pai (at right) said.
Net neutrality defenders including the Internet Association a trade group that represents Google Facebook Twitter and other tech companies argue that without strong rules ISPs could differentiate among content providers turning the internet into a closed delivery system like cable TV.
Progressive advocates say strong net neutrality rules that extend to wireless service are also important because they protect disenfranchised communities which tend to rely on these networks as well as small startups bloggers and civil rights activists.
We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging" FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said when voting for the rules last year.
The third time was the charm. The open Internet rules are here to stay" said Steptoe & Johnson LLP partner Pantelis Michalopoulos who argued in support of the FCC at the December hearing.
This time there is no doubt who is the winner: the open Internet. The gatekeepers may not block or throttle our information" he said.
They may not ask information to pay tolls. They may do nothing that unreasonably disadvantages users or content providers. And our iPhone is as safe as our PC: wireless Internet access providers are subject to the rules too."
The case could still be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But as some industry-watchers recently pointed out as long as the late Justice Antonin Scalias seat remains vacant the likelihood of a split decision will mean the lower courts ruling will stand. Or the justices may choose not to touch the issue until Scalias replacement is confirmed.
