**Net Neutrality Challenged Once More: Court Decides FCC Doesn’t Have the Power to Reinstate Open Internet Policies**
The principle of net neutrality has experienced another setback as the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) efforts to revive open internet regulations. The court found that the FCC does not possess the legal power to impose such regulations.
In a **26-page opinion** released by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, the court concluded that internet service providers (ISPs) should be categorized as providers of an **”information service”** instead of a **”telecommunications service”** as defined by the Communications Act of 1934. This designation frees ISPs from the more rigorous regulatory scrutiny applied to telecommunications services, effectively preventing the FCC from reinstating net neutrality laws.
### The Discourse on Internet Regulation
Circuit Judge Richard Allen Griffin, drafting for the court, referenced **47 U.S.C. § 230(a)(4)**, which asserts that the internet has flourished with limited governmental regulation. This ruling highlights the ongoing discussion regarding the classification and regulation of ISPs.
Net neutrality regulations aim to stop ISPs from altering internet access by throttling internet speeds, blocking legal websites, or charging additional fees for access to specific platforms. Proponents maintain that these regulations guarantee equal internet access for all users, whereas detractors argue that they impede innovation and investment in broadband infrastructure.
Former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler commented on the broader consequences of the matter, stating in 2023: “The issue is whether those who oversee the most powerful platform in history will be held responsible for operating in a ‘just and reasonable’ way. Why should such a crucial pathway for Americans be devoid of public interest oversight?”
### The Significance of ISP Classification
At the core of the net neutrality discussion lies the difference between “information services” and “telecommunications services.” Telecommunications carriers face stricter regulations, which include mandates to charge **”just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates.”** In contrast, information services encounter significantly fewer limitations.
The Communications Act defines an information service as offering the capacity to “generate, acquire, store, transform, process, retrieve, utilize, or make available information via telecommunications.” Conversely, a telecommunications service pertains to providing telecommunications for a fee directly to the public.
Judge Griffin contended that ISPs qualify as information services because they afford users the **”capability”** to retrieve third-party content, even if they do not directly alter the information themselves. This interpretation is consistent with a **recent Supreme Court ruling** that diminished the authority of government agencies by curtailing courts’ deference to their interpretations of vague statutes.
### The FCC’s Unsuccessful Argument
The FCC had argued that ISPs, which connect users to third-party content providers like **Netflix**, **Amazon**, and **Google**, should fall under the category of telecommunications services. However, the court disagreed, asserting that ISPs merely provide the means for users to access and retrieve information, categorizing them as information services under the law.
Griffin stated, “A provider need not itself generate, process, retrieve, or otherwise manipulate information to qualify as an ‘information service.’ Instead, it need only offer the ‘capability’ of manipulating information.”
### A Bipartisan Struggle
The classification of ISPs has varied with the political party in control. Under President Barack Obama in 2015, the FCC classified ISPs as telecommunications carriers, facilitating the implementation of net neutrality rules. However, during President Donald Trump’s term, the FCC reversed this decision, reclassifying ISPs as information services and abolishing net neutrality regulations.
In 2023, under President Joe Biden, the FCC sought to regain net neutrality. However, industry groups effectively secured an injunction to halt the effort, and Thursday’s court ruling seems to have delivered a definitive setback to the agency’s initiative.
### What Lies Ahead for Net Neutrality?
The FCC could potentially appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, but this seems improbable, particularly with Donald Trump poised to return to office in a matter of weeks. The court’s decision has prompted FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel to urge Congress to take action.
“Consumers nationwide have consistently told us that they desire an internet that is fast, open, and fair,” Rosenworcel remarked in a statement after the ruling. “With this decision, it is evident that Congress must now step up, take charge of net neutrality, and establish open internet principles into federal law.”
As the conflict over net neutrality persists, the future of an open internet now rests with lawmakers.