US appeals court hears challenge to net neutrality rules

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. will begin hearing arguments today on the topic of net neutrality.

Although the FCC reclassified the Internet as a common carrier, the agency still restricted itself from regulating such things as rates, imposing tariffs or forcing providers to ask for permission before introducing new products.

AT&T’s statement came from its vice president, Bob Quinn, who said that because of the FCC’s so-called “net neutrality rule” the company had to avoid offering some brand-new services.

The judges aren’t expected to rule for at least few months, so representatives from each side relied on the judge’s questions to gauge which way they might be leaning. Depending on the court’s opinion, the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) efforts to protect net neutrality could be dealt a significant setback.

In the 2014 opinion, which Tatel wrote, the court said the FCC lacked authority to take action because the commission at the time classified broadband as an information service.

Appeals Court Judge David Tatel “ask[ed] the challengers whether the Supreme Court hadn’t already decided most of the case in a prior decision called Brand X, which he suggested was best read to say that the commission gets broad authority to decide how best to classify these kinds of services”, Russell said.

Most of the questions involved technical issues about how the FCC went about setting its new rules, rather than about the rules themselves, said Matt Wood, policy director for pro-neutrality group Free Press.

Wireless broadband in the past enjoyed some exemptions from net neutrality rules (including some anti-discrimination and no-blocking rules) to prevent congestion on their networks. It probably wouldn’t even have to ask for public comments again, he said.

“Only a fool would predict from an oral argument how a panel of judges would rule”, said Pantelis Michalopulos, a partner at Steptoe & Johnson, who argued for intervenors such as Netflix, Dish Network and Comptel that are supporting the FCC’s approach.

The FCC’s counsel, Jonathan Sallet, faced a series of questions from Judge Stephen Williams over paid prioritization. OTI was deeply engaged in the FCC’s proceeding to draft the rules, pushing hard for equal network neutrality protections over mobile networks, and ensuring that the FCC didn’t allow interconnection disputes to become a gaping loophole in an otherwise comprehensive order.

An organization that represents Silicon Valley’s largest Web companies is asking a court to vacate tough new text-spam rules.

“It’s not what is the technology, it’s whether the technology is used to manage a telecommunications service”, he said.

The “judges seemed particularly hostile to rules on interconn[ection] and mobile on both notice and substance”, tweeted Doug Brake, a telecom policy analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which opposed the FCC’s rules.

For several years, ISPs including Verizon, Comcast and AT&T have been fighting to strike down the FCC’s regulations on net neutrality – the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.

So this time around, the FCC (with President Obama’s weigh-in) made a decision to reclassify broadband Internet access under what’s known as Title II of the Telecommunications Act – considering it like an essential public utility, like landline telephone service in the past century. “The future of these rules is unclear, and we’re in this exact posture because the Act hasn’t been updated in 20 years to reflect the realities of the broadband Internet marketplace”, he said. But he also said he’d “continue to watch” how it complies with the new rules. But Srinivasan said excluding mobile seemed to make little sense because mobile devices can go back and forth between Wi-Fi and mobile service.