Fcc Internet Net Neutrality Explained

Net neutrality is a concept that ensures internet service providers (ISPs) treat all online content equally. This means no favoritism or blocking of certain websites or services.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has rules in place to protect net neutrality. In 2015, the FCC reclassified ISPs as common carriers, giving them stronger oversight and regulation.

ISPs were previously considered information services, which allowed them to operate with less oversight. This change in classification was a significant shift in the way the FCC regulates the internet.

The FCC's rules prohibit ISPs from engaging in practices like paid prioritization, where they give priority to certain content in exchange for payment.

Explore further: Access-independent Services

The FCC's regulatory history on net neutrality is a complex and evolving story. In 2004, a court case voided the FCC's authority to enforce rules requiring telephone operators to unbundle certain parts of their networks at regulated prices, leading to the economic collapse of many competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC).

The FCC reclassified Internet access across the phone network, including DSL, as "information service" in 2005, relaxing common carrier regulations and unbundling requirements. This decision allowed broadband services to be regulated differently according to the technology by which they were carried.

In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against the FCC, stating that the agency had no powers to regulate any Internet provider's network or management practices. The court's decision was a setback for net neutrality advocates, but the FCC continued to fight for open internet policies.

The FCC's Open Internet Order in 2010 was criticized by some ISPs, who challenged the order in court. The D.C. Circuit Court ruled in 2014 to vacate the blocking and discrimination principles from the order, while upholding other parts.

Here are the key regulatory milestones in the FCC's net neutrality history:

The FCC's regulatory history on net neutrality has been marked by a series of court challenges and reversals, but the agency has continued to push for open internet policies.

In 2004, the court case USTA v. FCC voided the FCC's authority to enforce rules requiring telephone operators to unbundle certain parts of their networks at regulated prices, causing the economic collapse of many CLEC.

This led to a reclassification of broadband services, with DSL being regulated as an information service, similar to cable Internet, which had always been classified as such.

The FCC reclassified Internet access across the phone network, including DSL, as "information service" in 2005, relaxing the common carrier regulations and unbundling requirement.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association urged the FCC to adopt four net neutrality principles, which were later implemented voluntarily by internet service providers.

The four principles are as follows:

In 2017, the First Trump Administration rolled back Title I services, reversing the previous classification of ISPs as Title II common carriers.

Donald Trump's stance on net neutrality was clear, as he had previously called it "Obama's attack on the internet" and compared it to the Fairness Doctrine.

The administration's decision was a significant shift in regulatory history, undoing the progress made during the previous administration.

Donald Trump's comments in 2014, where he said net neutrality would "target conservative media", highlighted his concerns about the potential impact on free speech and media diversity.

This rollback marked a significant change in the way ISPs were regulated, with far-reaching implications for internet users and online businesses.

Take a look at this: Over-the-top Media Services in India

Title I Regulation is a crucial aspect of the FCC's internet net neutrality policies. In 2015, the FCC reclassified broadband internet as a Title II service, but in 2017, the FCC reversed this decision and reclassified broadband internet as a Title I service.

This change has significant implications for internet service providers (ISPs). With Title I classification, ISPs are no longer subject to the same level of regulation as they were under Title II.

ISPs can now engage in practices that were previously prohibited, such as paid prioritization and throttling. This change has sparked concerns about the potential for ISPs to abuse their power and create a two-tiered internet.

The FCC's decision to reclassify broadband internet as a Title I service was made in response to a court ruling that found the FCC's 2015 decision to be unlawful.

Readers also liked: Net Neutrality Regulation 2015

Comcast v. FCC was a significant case that tested the FCC's authority over internet providers. In 2008, the FCC ruled that Comcast had illegally throttled bandwidth for certain customers to ensure others had adequate bandwidth, and ordered Comcast to end this practice.

The FCC's decision was meant to set a precedent, stating that internet providers couldn't prevent customers from using their networks as they see fit unless there was a good reason. FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin said this order was about preserving the open character of the internet.

However, in two subsequent rulings in 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the FCC. The court denied the FCC's request for a cease-and-desist order against Comcast related to BitTorrent transfers.

The court ruled that the FCC had no power to regulate internet providers' networks or their management practices. The FCC lacked authority under Title I to force ISPs to keep their networks open to all forms of legal content.

Curious to learn more? Check out: National Communications Authority

The FCC's spectrum auction in 2008 had some important conditions attached to it. The FCC wanted to ensure that consumers could use their devices with any wireless network they preferred.

Consumers should be able to download and use any software application, content, or services they desire. This is known as "open applications."

The FCC also wanted to allow third parties to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis. This is known as "open services."

In addition, the FCC required that third parties, such as Internet service providers, could interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee's wireless network. This is known as "open networks."

However, the FCC only adopted two of these four criteria for the auction: open devices and open applications. These conditions were applied only to the nationwide C block portion of the band.

You might enjoy: Municipal Wireless Network

The Verizon v. FCC case was a major blow to net neutrality advocates in 2014. The D.C. Circuit court ruled in January 2014 to vacate the blocking and discrimination principles from the 2010 Open Internet Order.

The court determined that the FCC improperly relied on Section 706 of the amended Communications Act to apply rules to Title I information services. This decision effectively stripped the FCC of its authority to regulate ISPs in the same way it regulates common carriers.

The FCC had argued that Section 706 gave them the authority to regulate broadband providers, but the court disagreed. The court ruled that ISPs were still specifically treated as Title I information services by the FCC and that for the FCC to regulate aspects like blocking or discrimination, they would need to be specifically cataloged as common carriers under Title II.

FCC Chairman Wheeler argued that the FCC had the authority under Section 706 to regulate ISPs, but critics pointed out that this section has no clear mandate to guarantee equal access to content provided over the internet.

Broaden your view: General Telecommunications Authority

Donald Trump had been positioning himself for running for presidency as the FCC considered net neutrality and categorizing ISPs as Title II common carriers.

In 2014, Trump said "Obama's attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine."

This statement suggests that Trump was already aware of the issue and had strong feelings about it.

The FCC has proposed several alternative approaches to net neutrality. In 2010, then-FCC Commissioner Julius Genachowski proposed reclassifying internet access as a telecommunication service under Title Two of the Communications Act of 1934.

AT&T opposed this idea, arguing that common carrier regulations would be too restrictive, while Google supported it, citing the need for regulatory predictability and investment in broadband infrastructure. Google specifically stated that the proposal would promote legal certainty and regulatory predictability to spur investment and protect all broadband users.

The FCC later drafted a new proposal that would take a hybrid regulatory approach, dividing transactions between content providers and ISPs into stricter and laxer parameters. This proposal, which has become the most popular solution, would involve reclassification of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and parts of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Curious to learn more? Check out: Radio Act of 1927

In 2014, the FCC began drafting a new proposal that would take a hybrid regulatory approach to the issue of net neutrality. This proposal aimed to divide "wholesale" and "retail" transactions to illustrate clear rules grounded by law.

Reclassification of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 was involved, as well as parts of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Data being sent between content providers and ISPs would involve stricter regulations compared to transactions between ISPs and consumers.

Restrictions on offering a data fast lane would be enforced between content providers and ISPs to avoid unfair advantages. ISPs like AT&T had already warned the public about the potential problems with using Title II.

The hybrid proposal was expected to be the most popular solution among the FCC's options. However, ISPs were likely to dispute this solution.

For more insights, see: Data Cap

Net neutrality is a contentious issue in the United States, with advocates raising concerns about broadband providers blocking Internet applications and content.

Some people believe that regulations would deter investment in improving broadband infrastructure, but others argue that this is a necessary step to address net neutrality concerns.

Professor Susan Crawford, a legal and technology expert at Harvard Law School, suggested that municipal broadband might be a possible solution to net neutrality concerns in 2014.

Broadband providers have the power to block competitors, which is a concern for those advocating for net neutrality.

Regulations, or the lack thereof, have sparked a heated debate about the role of government in overseeing the internet.

Check this out: Hong Kong Broadband Network

In March 2019, Democratic Senators and Representatives presented the Save the Internet Act in both Houses of Congress.

The Act aimed to rescind the 2017 FCC order that repealed the 2015 Open Internet Order.

If passed, the Act would have codified the 2015 Open Internet Order into law, ensuring its provisions remained in place.

Republican lawmakers expressed concerns that the bill was too extreme and unlikely to receive their support.

The bill successfully cleared the House on a 232–190 vote on April 10, 2019.

However, both Senate leaders and then-president Trump indicated they would block the bill's passage.

You might enjoy: Stop Online Piracy Act

The FCC has made significant efforts to establish net neutrality rules to ensure a free and open internet. In 2010, the FCC Open Internet Order was approved, banning cable television and telephone service providers from preventing access to competitors or certain websites.

The order established six net neutrality principles that would apply to ISPs, including transparency, no blocking, level playing field, network management, mobile, and vigilance.

You might like: Open Telecommunications

The 2010 orders did not reclassify ISPs under Title II common carriers, leaving them unregulated by the FCC under Title I information services. This decision was met with criticism from net neutrality advocates, who argued that it would allow ISPs to discriminate on transmission speed for profit.

In contrast, the 2015 Open Internet Order reclassified ISPs as Title II common carriers, treating the internet as a public good and ensuring net neutrality. This decision was made after a public campaign by social media platforms and net neutrality advocacy groups.

The FCC voted 3–2 to pass the new rules, making exemptions for North Carolina and Tennessee where state laws had already established stronger net neutrality concepts.

Readers also liked: Net Neutrality II

In 2016, the United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC case was heard by a three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The court issued its decision in June 2016, with the panel split 2-1 in favor of maintaining the FCC's ruling that the Internet should be treated as a utility and not as a luxury.

If this caught your attention, see: 2024 United States Telecommunications Hack

Internet providers signaled their intent to continue to challenge this ruling to the Supreme Court, but ultimately, several telecom groups petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari.

The petition argued that the FCC did not have the power to issue the Open Internet Order, which required a re-interpretation of the Communications Act of 1934, under the Chevron deference.

On November 5, 2018, seven members of the Court denied the petition, leaving in place the Court of Appeals ruling, which established that the FCC had the ability to reclassify Internet under Title II.

Chief Justice John Roberts abstained due to financial conflict, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh abstained due to his previous involvement with the case history.

The Court of Appeals ruling was a significant victory for net neutrality advocates, who had been fighting to keep the internet open and free from corporate control.

The FCC's ability to reclassify Internet under Title II gave it the authority to regulate internet service providers and ensure that they treat all internet traffic equally.

Mozilla v. FCC was a landmark case that made waves in the world of internet freedom. The case centered around the FCC's decision to repeal net neutrality rules in 2017.

The FCC argued that the internet was a Title I information service under the Communications Act of 1934, which allowed internet service providers (ISPs) to manage their networks as they saw fit.

Mozilla and other advocacy groups disagreed, arguing that the internet was a Title II telecommunications service, which would have required ISPs to treat all online content equally.

The FCC's decision to repeal net neutrality rules was a major blow to internet freedom advocates.

Take a look at this: Internet Freedom

In 2018, California State Senator Scott Wiener introduced SB822, which comprehensively restored all of the protections of the 2015 Open Internet Order.

The bill passed with bipartisan support in both the State Assembly and State Senate, and Governor Jerry Brown signed it into law on September 30, 2018.

Curious to learn more? Check out: Electronic Communications Code Directive 2018

The US Department of Justice sued the state of California to stop the law, arguing that Congress granted the FCC the sole authority to create rules for broadband internet providers.

Four lobbying groups that represent major US communication carriers also sued the state of California for similar reasons.

The state and the FCC announced on October 26, 2018, that they have reached agreement for California to hold off the enforcement of the law until pending legal action over the FCC's decision.

Despite not being enforced, the bill went into effect on January 1, 2019.

The U.S. government and the ISP trade groups restarted their lawsuit in August 2020, seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of California's law.

However, following the election of Joe Biden as president in 2021, Biden's new Department of Justice withdrew from the challenge.

The judge denied the preliminary injunction in a ruling on February 23, 2021, allowing the California law to go into effect.

The Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously in January 2022 that California's net neutrality law may continue to be enforced and cannot be overridden by the FCC.

The trade groups abandoned the case against the law by May 2022.

Readers also liked: Unsolicited Text Messages Law

In 2009, Sen. McCain introduced the "Internet Freedom Act of 2009" (S. 1836), which aimed to prohibit the FCC from enacting rules that would regulate the Internet.

This bill, if passed, would have prevented the FCC from imposing network or "net" neutrality rules to the Internet. Specifically, it stated that the FCC shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services.

On January 5, 2011, two anti-net neutrality bills were introduced: H.R. 96, The Internet Freedom Act, and H.R. 166, The Internet Investment, Innovation, and Competition Preservation Act.

Worth a look: Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom

In the early 2000s, net neutrality regulations became a prominent issue in the US. Nine different bills were introduced between 2006 and 2013 to address this issue.

One of these bills was the "Internet Freedom Act of 2009" introduced by Sen. McCain (R-AZ) on October 22, 2009. This bill would have prohibited the FCC from enacting rules that would regulate the Internet.

Industry officials argued that these proposals would launch new rules and regulations for internet providers. The "Internet Freedom Act of 2009" specifically stated that the FCC shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services.

In 2011, two anti-net neutrality bills were introduced in the House of Representatives. H.R. 96, The Internet Freedom Act, was introduced by Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) with over sixty cosponsors, all of whom were Republican.

The bill struck down the FCC's December 21 passage of its rule and order on net neutrality by asserting that regulation of the Internet is under the jurisdiction of Congress, not the FCC. Another bill, H.R. 166, The Internet Investment, Innovation, and Competition Preservation Act, was introduced by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and co-sponsored by Rep. Blackburn.

A fresh viewpoint: Freedom on Net

In 2019, Democratic Senators and Representatives presented the Save the Internet Act in both Houses of Congress.

The Act aimed to rescind the 2017 FCC order to repeal the 2015 Open Internet Order, which would have allowed internet service providers to prioritize certain content over others.

This bill would have codified the 2015 Open Internet Order into law, effectively preventing the FCC from making similar changes without further legislative action.

The bill cleared the House on a 232–190 vote on April 10, 2019, but its passage was ultimately thwarted by Republican lawmakers and then-president Trump.

Check this out: 2019 Internet Blackout in Iran

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also urged restraint in 2007, noting that new regulations may have adverse effects on consumer welfare. They pointed out that the broadband industry is a relatively young and evolving one, and that there was no significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm from conduct by broadband providers.

Some proponents of net neutrality legislation have suggested that it's necessary to prevent ISPs from throttling traffic. However, Aparna Watal, a legal officer at Atomic Labs, argued that this approach may not be the most effective way to address the issue. She suggested that requiring ISPs to disclose their network management practices and allowing consumers to switch ISPs inexpensively could be a more practical approach.

The potential for poorly conceived legislation to ban legitimate activity is a concern. For example, it could make it difficult for ISPs to legally perform necessary packet filtering, such as combating denial of service attacks or filtering E-Mail spam.

Alaska has taken action to uphold net neutrality, with a regulation proposed in HB277 on January 12, 2018.

California's California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018, SB-822, was enacted on January 22, 2018, and is still under litigation. Enforcement of the law was granted by the court as of February 2021.

Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, and Hawaii have all proposed draft legislation to uphold net neutrality.

Georgia has proposed a regulation, SB 310, to uphold net neutrality, enacted on December 18, 2017.

Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, and North Carolina have all proposed draft legislation to uphold net neutrality.

New Jersey has proposed monitoring, A.5257, on February 5, 2018, and has also sued the FCC on the same date.

New Mexico has proposed a regulation, SB 39, to uphold net neutrality, enacted on December 21, 2017.

New York has proposed state contracts, S07175, on January 3, 2018, and has also sued the FCC on January 16, 2018.

A unique perspective: Communications in Papua New Guinea

Oregon has proposed a ballot initiative drive to uphold net neutrality, on January 21, 2018.

Pennsylvania has proposed a possible executive order to uphold net neutrality, on January 26, 2018.

Rhode Island has proposed state & local contracts, H 7076, on January 10, 2018, and has also sued the FCC on the same date.

South Dakota has proposed state contracts, SB 195, on February 6, 2018.

Tennessee has proposed state & local contracts, SB 1756, on January 23, 2018.

Vermont has proposed state contracts, H.680, on January 31, 2018, and has also sued the FCC on January 16, 2018.

Washington (state) has proposed regulation, HB 2282, on December 13, 2017, and has also proposed state contracts, SB 6446, on January 17, 2018.

Wisconsin has proposed draft legislation to uphold net neutrality, enacted on January 25, 2018.

Here is a summary of state actions:

The FCC's net neutrality journey has been a long and winding road. The agency first adopted net neutrality principles in 2005, but these guidelines were later overturned by the US Court of Appeals in 2010.

In 2015, the FCC reclassified broadband internet access providers as Title II carriers and adopted revised net neutrality rules. This move was met with strong opposition from the cable and wireless industries.

The FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules were designed to prevent broadband providers from blocking or throttling online content. However, these rules were later repealed in 2018 by the FCC under President Donald Trump.

The repeal of net neutrality rules was met with a lawsuit from the state of California, which had passed its own net neutrality law in 2018. The lawsuit was eventually dropped in 2022 when the Ninth Circuit ruled that California's law could continue to be enforced.

In 2024, the FCC attempted to reinstate the repealed net neutrality rules, but this move was likely to be overturned by the courts following the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright. The Sixth Circuit decision in 2024 essentially preserved the status quo, leaving no federal net neutrality rules in place.

Broadband operators have imposed various contractual limits on their subscribers' activities, with some even labeling certain uses as "theft of service" and a federal crime. This includes Cox Cable disciplining users of virtual private networks (VPNs) and AT&T warning customers that using a Wi-Fi service for home networking was a federal crime.

In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage, prompting the FCC to issue a Letter of Inquiry and eventually a voluntary payment of fifteen thousand dollars from Madison River.

The FCC has also acknowledged that mobile broadband providers have more latitude for blocking devices and applications, as long as they don't compete with the provider's own voice or video telephony services. This is evident in the case of AT&T restricting use of Apple's video-conferencing application FaceTime on cellular networks.

For another approach, see: Hybrid Access Networks

Violations of net neutrality rules have been a significant concern in the past. Many broadband operators have imposed contractual limits on their subscribers' activities.

Cox Cable, for instance, disciplined users of virtual private networks (VPNs). AT&T warned customers that using a Wi-Fi service for home networking was considered "theft of service" and a federal crime.

Comcast blocked ports of VPNs, forcing the state of Washington to contract with telecommunications providers for unimpeded broadband access. This highlights the importance of net neutrality in ensuring equal access to the internet.

In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. The FCC issued a Letter of Inquiry to Madison River, initiating an investigation.

Madison River agreed to make a voluntary payment of fifteen thousand dollars and to not block ports used for VoIP applications. This shows that companies can be held accountable for violating net neutrality rules.

AT&T was also accused of violating net neutrality rules in 2012. A group of public interest organizations filed a complaint with the FCC regarding AT&T's restriction of Apple's video-conferencing application FaceTime.

See what others are reading: Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society

Some opponents of net neutrality argue that under the ISP market competition, paid-prioritization of bandwidth can induce optimal user welfare. This is because competition can lead to better services and lower prices.

Others suggest introducing a neutral public option to incentivize competition, rather than enforcing existing ISPs to be neutral. This approach is based on the idea that a public option can bring in new competition and drive innovation.

The idea of introducing a public option is not new, and some argue that it's a better alternative to enforcing net neutrality. However, this approach also raises concerns about the role of government in regulating the internet.

In 2011, Aparna Watal of Attomic Labs suggested that transparency, threat of public backlash, and the FCC's current authority were enough to solve the issues of net neutrality. She argued that the threat of consumers switching providers and the high cost of maintaining a non-neutral network would deter bad practices.

The Wall Street Journal has written about the government's responsibility being more along the lines of making sure consumers have the ability to find another internet provider if they are not satisfied with their service. This approach focuses on consumer choice rather than network management.

Suggestion: Do Not Call Registry Text Messages

In 2019, Democratic Senators and Representatives presented the Save the Internet Act, which aimed to rescind the 2017 FCC order to repeal the 2015 Open Internet Order.

The bill, if passed, would have codified the 2015 Open Internet Order into law and prevented the FCC from making similar changes without further legislative action. However, Republican lawmakers indicated they would not support the bill.

The House cleared the bill on a 232–190 vote on April 10, 2019, but the bill stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Verizon Communications challenged the 2010 Open Internet Order in court, arguing that the FCC had overstepped its authority by applying neutrality principles to Title I information services. The D.C. Circuit ruled in 2014 to vacate the blocking and discrimination principles from the order while upholding other parts.

The court determined that ISPs were still treated as Title I information services by the FCC, and for the FCC to regulate aspects like blocking or discrimination, they would need to specifically catalog them as telecommunication common carriers under Title II.

A fresh viewpoint: At&t Important Information Letter

In 2016, the United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC case was heard by a three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court issued its decision in June 2016, with the panel split 2-1 in favor of maintaining the FCC's ruling.

The court ruled that the Internet should be treated as a utility and not as a luxury. Internet providers signaled their intent to continue to challenge this ruling to the Supreme Court.

Several telecom groups petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari following the Court of Appeals ruling, ultimately falling under the case name Berninger v. Federal Communications Commission (Docket 17-489). The petition argued that the FCC did not have the power to issue the Open Internet Order.

On November 5, 2018, seven members of the Court denied the petition, leaving in place the Court of Appeals ruling.

Intriguing read: Internet Censorship in the United States

Government abuse potential is a serious concern when it comes to government regulation of the internet.

George Mason University fellow Adam Thierer has argued that any government agency big enough to control a major sector of the economy will be prone to influence by those most affected by it.

This can lead to special interests exploiting the regulatory regime, just like they did in the telecom and broadcast industry.

Grant Babcock noted that government oversight of ISPs could allow agencies like the NSA to pressure ISPs into handing over private communication data on their users.

The history of U.S. governmental abuse of regulation is a cause for concern, including the Federal Reserve forcing some banks in 2008 to accept Troubled Asset Relief Program funding by threatening to use their regulatory powers.

Verizon has argued that government enforcement of information anti-discrimination is a violation of their constitutional rights, specifically concerning the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment.

See what others are reading: List of Telecommunications Regulatory Bodies

In some countries, net neutrality is enforced, while in others it's not. For example, in Belgium, net neutrality was enforced as early as 2014.

In fact, over 20 countries have enforced net neutrality, including India, which did so in 2018, and Japan, which has enforced it since an unspecified year.

Argentina, Chile, China, Indonesia, New Zealand, and Sri Lanka are among the countries where net neutrality is not enforced.

Here's a breakdown of the countries where net neutrality is enforced:

Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) should not discriminate or charge differently based on the type of content, platform, or user.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has defined net neutrality as the idea that ISPs should treat all internet traffic equally, without prioritizing or slowing down certain types of content.

Explore further: Platform for Internet Content Selection

Net Neutrality is a concept that's been debated by internet service providers and lawmakers for years. In 2018, California passed a law that comprehensively restored all the protections of the 2015 Open Internet Order.

The law, signed by Governor Jerry Brown, aimed to prevent internet service providers from throttling or blocking certain websites and services. However, the US Department of Justice and four lobbying groups representing major US communication carriers sued the state of California, arguing that Congress granted the FCC the sole authority to create rules for broadband internet providers.

Some internet service providers, like Comcast, have opposed blocking or throttling, but have argued that they can charge websites for faster data delivery. AT&T has made a broad commitment to net neutrality, but has also argued for their right to offer websites paid prioritization.

The FCC's rollback of net neutrality protections included language that asserted states do not have authority to override the FCC decision. However, legal experts believe this clause to be flawed, and would allow states to still override the FCC's decision on net neutrality.

In October 2018, California and the FCC reached an agreement for California to hold off on enforcing the law until pending legal action over the FCC's decision was resolved. The law went into effect on January 1, 2019, despite not being enforced.

The Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously in January 2022 that California's net neutrality law may continue to be enforced and cannot be overridden by the FCC, as internet services are classified as information services.

If this caught your attention, see: Internet in the United States

As of 2006, the debate over net neutrality didn't fully capture the complexity of the issue, leaving some key questions unanswered.

One such question is whether voice packets should get higher priority than packets carrying email, a decision that could have significant implications for how we communicate online.

Cable companies have lobbied Congress to pass a federal preemption that would ban states and municipalities from competing with them, arguing that this would interfere with interstate commerce.

However, there's a Supreme Court precedent that suggests states have the right to go into business for their citizens, potentially allowing them to compete with cable companies.

In 2006, it was proposed that even advanced technologies like encryption, onion routing, or time-shifting DVRs might not be enough to prevent discrimination online.

This highlights the ongoing challenges in ensuring that the internet remains a level playing field, where all content and services are treated equally.

You might like: Get Online Week

In 2009, Sen. McCain introduced the "Internet Freedom Act of 2009" which would have prohibited the FCC from enacting rules that regulate the Internet.

The bill was part of a series of nine bills introduced between 2006 and 2013, all of which aimed to launch new rules and regulations for internet providers.

On January 5, 2011, two anti-net neutrality bills were introduced: H.R. 96, The Internet Freedom Act, and H.R. 166, The Internet Investment, Innovation, and Competition Preservation Act.

The pro-net neutrality bill, S. 74, The Internet Freedom, Broadband Promotion, and Consumer Protection Act of 2011, was introduced on January 25, 2011, by Sen. Cantwell and co-sponsored by Sen. Franken.

The bill would have codified the FCC's six net neutrality principles, which included nondiscrimination and transparency.

In 2010, then-FCC Commissioner Julius Genachowski proposed an alternate position, which would have reclassified Internet access as a telecommunication service under Title Two of the Communications Act of 1934.

This proposal would have applied six common carrier rules under the legal principle of forbearance, which would have prevented unreasonable discrimination and mandated reasonable net neutrality policies.

The proposal was opposed by incumbent ISP AT&T, who argued that common carrier regulations would be too restrictive.

However, Google supported the proposal, stating that it would promote legal certainty and regulatory predictability to spur investment and protect broadband users.

The FCC began drafting a new proposal in 2014, which would take a hybrid regulatory approach to the issue.

This proposal would have divided transactions between content providers and ISPs into two categories: wholesale and retail.

Wholesale transactions would have been subject to stricter regulations, while retail transactions would have been subject to more lax parameters.

The proposal would have also restricted the offering of data fast lanes between content providers and ISPs to avoid unfair advantages.

The FCC's Open Internet Order of 2010 established six net neutrality principles, which included transparency, no blocking, level playing field, network management, mobile, and vigilance.

These principles were designed to prevent telecommunications, cable, and wireless companies from blocking certain information on the Internet.

The order also created an open Internet advisory committee to assist the commission in monitoring the state of Internet openness and the effects of the rules.

In 2006, the debate over net neutrality didn't yet capture some key dimensions of the topic. As a result, questions remained about whether voice packets should get higher priority than packets carrying email.

Cable companies have lobbied Congress for a federal preemption to ban states and municipalities from competing with them. This is because they believe states and municipalities could interfere with interstate commerce.

There is current Supreme Court precedent for an exception to the Commerce Power of Congress for states to go into business for their citizens. This means that states may have some room to maneuver in the net neutrality debate.

In 2006, it was proposed that neither municipal wireless nor other technological solutions would be sufficient to render possible discrimination moot. This suggests that some people thought that even with alternative solutions, discrimination could still occur.