D.C. Court of Appeals Upholds States’ Right to Net Neutrality Regulation

The D.C. Court of Appeals gives states greater independence in making net neutrality policy. (Wikimedia Commons)

A three-judge panel from the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld states’ rights to issue their own net neutrality regulations on October 1, while affirming Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai’s rollback of federal net neutrality rules. The reversal of net neutrality in 2017 allowed online providers, such as Verizon or AT&T, to block or slow down access to web content and charge higher prices to streaming services for faster delivery. 34 states, in addition to Washington, D.C., reacted to this reversal by introducing 120 bills and resolutions regarding net neutrality in the 2018 legislative session. 

Although Pai, alongside other opponents of net neutrality, justified this transition by arguing that “under the heavy-handed regulations adopted by the prior Commission…network investment declined for two straight years,” a recent study from George Washington University indicates the opposite. The report found  that “there were no impacts on telecommunication industry investment from the net neutrality policy changes. Neither the 2010 or 2015 US net neutrality rule changes had any causal impact on telecommunications investment.” 

The recent ruling signifies the possibility of restoring and strengthening Obama-era rules in large swaths of the country, as 34 states, along with Washington, D.C., introduced forms of open internet legislation. Despite the court’s decision to allow states to self-regulate internet policy, Ajit Pai remained optimistic, stating on Twitter that “the court affirmed the FCC’s decision to repeal 1930’s utility-style regulation of the Internet. A free and open Internet is what we have today.” 

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat who voted against the original net neutrality repeal claimed that “when the FCC rolled back net neutrality, it was on the wrong side of the American people, the wrong side of history,” while maintaining that “there is still a fight to be had.” Amy Keating, chief legal officer at Mozilla, struck a similar note as she asserted that the fight “is far from over,” adding that Mozilla is “considering our next steps in the litigation.” 

In individual opinions, presiding judges Millett, Wilkins, and Williams agreed with the collective ruling, though Williams wrote in favor of federal preemption by citing that enforcement of interstate internet would be impossible. The court’s decision to allow state regulation will surely end in more litigation, but the resolution marks a decisive win for states.