New twist in an interminable case: an American appeals court abolished the principle of Net neutrality, Thursday January 2. The three judges of this federal court decided that the American telecommunications agency, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), did not have the necessary authority to impose this principle on the industry.
Concretely, the principle of Net neutrality means that Internet service providers (ISPs) do not have the right to modulate the speed of flow depending on the content. It therefore guarantees in theory equal access to the Internet and is defended by the major digital platforms as well as by numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In its absence, telecoms can therefore slow down or censor certain sites, and favor other services.
Regulations adopted under Obama
This principle has been the subject of heated debate for two decades. Republican Donald Trump abolished it during his first term in 2017, but the FCC reinstated it last April with three votes (Democrats) to two (Republicans), thus reinstating the regulations adopted under Democrat Barack Obama, in 2015, and for which the Biden administration was fighting.
Read also | The United States repeals Net neutrality, a founding principle of the Internet
Read later
“Every consumer deserves fast, open and fair Internet access”declared Jessica Rosenworcel, president of the FCC, adding that this principle “ensures that, online, you can go where you want and do what you want without your broadband provider making choices for you”.
Donald Trump, who will return to the White House on January 20, has named Brendan Carr, an opponent of net neutrality, as future chairman of the FCC. Mr Carr believes that this principle leads to considering telecoms as public services, which would then invest less in ultra-fast Internet networks. It is therefore very unlikely that the future administration will seek to go against this court decision. Net neutrality advocates can still take the case to the Supreme Court, however.
A decision “wrong at all levels”
USTelecom, a lobby grouping of large companies in the telecoms sector such as AT&T or Verizon, welcomed in a press release a “victory for American consumers which will lead to more investment, innovation and competition in a dynamic digital market”. On the NGO side, on the other hand, we do not hide our bitterness. Matt Wood, vice president for public policy at the Free Press Association, said the court's decision “disappointing” et “wrong at every level”. In an online reaction, he noted that Donald Trump will thus be able to “abdicate its responsibility to protect Internet users from unscrupulous commercial practices”.
The Computer & Communications Industry Association, a pressure group including large tech companies like Amazon, Apple, Alphabet (parent company of Google) and Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) had until now supported the principle of neutrality of Net, arguing that it was “preserve open access to the Internet”. These large companies, whose bosses have increased positive signals towards Donald Trump in recent months, have not yet reacted to the court decision handed down Thursday.
Whatever the outcome, the principle of Net neutrality should not disappear completely in the country. Some American states, such as California or Colorado, have in fact adopted their own laws guaranteeing its application. In Europe, the principle of Net neutrality has been protected by law since 2015.
