It’s a real sea serpent. Net neutrality has been debated in the United States for around fifteen years. Actively desired by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), it is constantly attacked by an industry that does not want it.
What are we talking about? From the principle according to which access providers only offer simple piping for the Internet. All streams are considered equally important and they cannot prioritize certain streams or request to be paid more for a specific type of stream.
The FCC has exceeded its duties
The heart of the dispute lay in how to view American ISPs: were they telecommunications or information services? For Judge Richard Allen Griffin of the Sixth Circuit of Appeal, the decision is clear: the providers constitute an information service. As a result, “mobile broadband is a private mobile service” and current net neutrality laws do not apply.
For the judge, “ the FCC exceeded its statutory authority » and would have had a “ too broad interpretation of the law “. The court thus orders the suspension of the FCC order imposing network neutrality, a decree called “Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order”.
This decree was taken under Barack Obama in 2015, after years of heated discussions. The telecommunications industry was head-on against the principle, while the tech industry was calling for it. And for good reason: they live off online services. The rise of Netflix and other streaming platforms has only reignited tensions. Donald Trump abolished it in 2018, but the FCC reinstated it in April 2024.
What future for neutrality in the United States?
The future of the principle of neutrality is currently obscured by Uncle Sam. In Europe, it has been protected since 2015. Across the Atlantic, it is the subject of fierce discussions between Republicans and Democrats.
-Jessica Rosenworcel, current chair of the FCC, regrets the appeals court’s decision. She now believes that only the legislative route can save neutrality. “ Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want fast, open and fair internet. With this decision, it is clear that Congress must now heed their call, address net neutrality, and enshrine open internet principles into federal law “, she said in a statement, cited by Reuters.
The FCC could take the case to the Supreme Court, but the bet is risky. Since the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh as judge to the highest court in the country, it has had a conservative majority.
In addition, the arrival of Donald Trump in power for his second term on January 20 will mark the end of Jessica Rosenworcel’s presidency. She will be replaced by Brendan Carr, a well-known opponent of net neutrality. He believes that this principle amounts to considering access providers as a public service, thereby reducing investments in infrastructure.
Note that if neutrality is no longer a principle at the federal level, nothing prevents states from having their own laws in this area. This is particularly the case in California and Colorado, which have included neutrality in their legislation.
Related News :