Network Neutrality

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.

In a series of orders beginning in 2005, the Federal Communications Commission has acted to promote the widespread deployment of broadband networks that are open, affordable, and accessible to all. Four of these previous orders have been reviewed by the D.C. Circuit; the challenge to a fifth order is currently pending (but in abeyance) there as well.  The D.C. Circuit has approved aspects of the FCC’s orders but disagreed with others—on several occasions remanding to the FCC for further action or additional deliberation. Thus, for more than a decade, the D.C.

The Federal Communications Commission made some changes to the recent Net Neutrality Order between the version that got approved on April 25 and the final version that was released to the Congressional record. One of the most interesting changes was to clarify rules pertaining to carriers creating fast lanes. The original order included language that prohibited paid prioritization, which is generically referred to as fast lanes.

On May 7, the Federal Communications Commission reclassified “broadband Internet access service” (BIAS) as a “telecommunications service” subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC under Title II of the Communications Act. The FCC determined that “the freedom to send and receive lawful content and to use and provide applications and services without fear of blocking continues to be essential to the Internet’s openness,” and expressed concern that BIAS providers may be incentivized to block edge providers’ content. Under the Open Internet rules, BIAS providers are prohibited from impairing or de

The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill provides a total discretionary allocation of $23.608 billion, which is nearly 20 percent below the President’s Budget Request and nearly 10 percent below the effective spending level provided in Fiscal Year 2024. The defense portion of the allocation is $45 million, and the non-defense portion of the allocation is $23.563 billion.

As expected, broadband industry lobby groups have sued the Federal Communications Commission in an attempt to nullify net neutrality rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. Lobby groups representing cable, telecom, and mobile Internet service providers sued the FCC in several US appeals courts.