Recent federal court decisions have indicated a significant shift in the regulation of broadband internet, giving states like California and New York a larger role in enforcing net neutrality and broadband management. This evolution follows the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ overturning of the Federal Communications Commission’s attempts to set nationwide open internet standards, leaving states to implement their own rules.
The appeals court’s ruling marks a pivotal moment in a long-standing legal tug-of-war between federal initiatives and state authorities over the control of internet services. The decision reaffirms that states retain the power to regulate broadband, despite the FCC’s diminished role under current federal guidelines.
California has been at the forefront of this movement. The state enacted a robust net neutrality law in 2018, shortly after the FCC, under the Trump administration, repealed similar nationwide protections established during President Obama’s tenure. This California law, known as the California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act, pioneered efforts to prevent discriminatory practices like traffic throttling and interference by internet service providers.
State-led regulations have had tangible impacts on how firms operate. Notably, California’s legislation led AT&T to cease its “zero rating” of its Max streaming service, a practice where data usage for certain services is exempt from counting towards a customer’s overall data cap, but not for others.
Ernesto Falcon, associated with the California Public Utilities Commission, emphasized the importance of these state rulings in an interview, stating that with limited federal oversight, states need to take a more proactive approach to regulating broadband providers.
The impetus for state legislation grew stronger after the FCC, during the Biden administration, sought to reinstate Obama-era rules to create a uniform national standard for internet providers. This initiative aimed at greater responsiveness during outages or breaches and heightened scrutiny of foreign-owned service providers for national security.
However, in a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel from the 6th Circuit, it was determined that the FCC overstepped its authority by attempting to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, subject to stricter federal regulation.
Parallel to this, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s net neutrality law, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a challenge to a New York state law that mandated affordable broadband for low-income residents. These judicial moves support the autonomy of states to implement and uphold their broadband regulations.
Industry responses have been mixed, with some stakeholders challenging state laws as overreaching. Despite these challenges, courts have largely supported state authority, suggesting a growing recognition of their role in safeguarding consumer rights and maintaining fair access to internet services.
This shift underscores a broader realization that robust state regulation may be necessary to fill the vacuum left by limited federal oversight in broadband management. Going forward, the combination of legal backing and proactive state legislation may shape the future landscape of internet regulation in the U.S.
This article was automatically generated, and the accuracy of the individuals, data, scenarios, or narrative may be incorrect. Requests for removal, retraction, or corrections can be directed to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.