The dream of former President Obama to extend federal control over online delivery was decisively thwarted by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals last Thursday.
Circuit Judge Richard Griffin, a George W. Bush appointee, penned the unanimous panel's decision, asserting that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacked the legal authority to regulate internet broadband companies. "The FCC lacks the statutory authority to impose its desired net-neutrality policies through the telecommunications service provision of the Communications Act," Griffin stated.
According to RedState, the concept of net neutrality has been more about an FCC power grab than consumer protection. As the FCC's original mandate to regulate the electromagnetic spectrum became less relevant with the rise of internet broadband services, it sought to maintain its relevance by positioning itself as a protector of consumers from potential corporate schemes to limit content availability.
Net neutrality, a term coined by Columbia University law professor Tim Wu in a 2003 paper, originated from the early internet's ethos of openness and equality. Wu proposed that internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data on the internet equally, irrespective of its source, content, or destination. This principle was born out of fears that without such a rule, ISPs could favor certain content or services over others, potentially hindering innovation and free speech. The Obama administration latched onto this concept as a means to mobilize its voters and patrons.
Tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Netflix championed the concept of net neutrality. These companies lobbied the FCC to establish rules preventing ISPs from giving preferential treatment to certain content. In 2010, under Democratic chairman Julius Genachowski, the FCC proposed the first net neutrality rules, sparking public interest, street protests, and even threats of violence against commissioners who opposed the rules.
In 2015, the Obama administration's FCC imposed net neutrality rules. However, when Ajit Pai, Trump's FCC chairman, took office, he initiated the rollback of these rules, which were officially withdrawn in January 2018.
The Biden administration's FCC reinstated the rule in April 2024, immediately facing a court challenge. Due to the numerous challenges nationwide, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the cases and appointed the Sixth Circuit to resolve the issue. Thus, last Thursday's decision effectively ends the net neutrality debate, barring an appeal to the Supreme Court or Congressional action.
Judge Griffin's ruling emphasized that the FCC could not reinterpret federal law to serve its purposes. He pointed out the constant changes in policy, stating, "This orderissued during the Biden administrationundoes the order issued during the first Trump administration, which undid the order issued during the Obama administration, which undid orders issued during the Bush and Clinton administrations." He concluded that it was time to end the FCCs vacillations.
The termination of net neutrality is seen as a positive development by many conservatives. It limits the FCC's ability to interfere in the marketplace, which typically results in increased liberty, innovation, less rent-seeking, reduced influence by lobbyists, and improved outcomes for citizens. If the potential negative consequences predicted by Obama materialize, Congress can grant jurisdiction to the FCC. Until then, the FCC should refrain from unnecessary intervention.
The case, Ohio Telecom vs FCC, marks a significant milestone in the ongoing debate over net neutrality. The decision underscores the importance of limited government intervention and the preservation of individual freedom in the digital realm, core tenets of conservative ideology. It serves as a reminder that the power to regulate should be wielded judiciously, with a keen eye on preserving the free-market dynamics that drive innovation and progress.
Login