Skip to content Skip to main menu
  • News
  • Events
  • Law Library
  • Giving
  • Alumni
  • Quicklinks

    • Academic Calendar
    • bCourses Overview
    • bCourses Link
    • Schedule of Classes
    • Academic Rules
    • View Evaluations
    • UC Berkeley Law Logo (Identity)
    • RoloLaw
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
    • Emergency Info
    • Resource Hub for Faculty & Staff
    • COVID-19 Information

    Support

    • Remote Teaching Resources
    • Computing Support
    • Faculty Support Unit
    • Berkeley Law Events
    • Business Services
    • Faculty Services (Library)
    • Human Resources & Academic Personnel
    • Instructional Technology
    • Phones
    • Room Reservations
    • Building Services
    • Resources to Respond to Sexual Harassment
  • Quicklinks

    • Academic Calendar
    • b-Line
    • Berkeley Law Facebook
    • Financial Aid
    • Faculty Profiles
    • Schedule of Classes
    • Teaching Evaluations
    • Final Exam Review Session Schedule
    • Exams
    • Final Exam Schedule
    • CalCentral
    • COVID-19 Information
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
    • Emergency Info
    • Resource Hub for Students

    For Students

    • Dean of Students Office
    • Academic Policies
    • Academic Skills Program
    • Student Organizations
    • Student Journals
    • Commencement
    • Bookstore
    • Wellness at Berkeley Law
    • Registrar
    • University Health Services
    • Resources to Respond to Sexual Harassment
    • Inclusive Restrooms
  • Search for People at Berkeley Law

UC Berkeley Law
    • Academics Home
    • Areas of Study
      • Criminal Justice
      • Environment and Energy
      • Human Rights
      • Social Justice and Public Interest
        • Curriculum
          • J.D. Path
          • LL.M. Path
        • Social Justice+Public Interest Community at Berkeley Law
          • Public Interest and Pro Bono Graduation
      • Business and Start-ups
        • Business Law Curriculum
        • Business Law Faculty
      • Law and Technology
        • Student Activities
        • Law and Tech Curriculum
        • Law and Tech Faculty
      • Environmental Law
      • International and Comparative Law
        • Centers, Clinics, and Programs
        • Faculty
        • Student Activities
      • Constitutional and Regulatory
      • Law and Economics
        • Faculty
        • Prospective Students
        • Visiting Scholars
        • Law and Economics Fellowship
    • J.D. Program
      • First-Year Curriculum
      • Concurrent Degree Programs
      • Combined Degree Programs
      • Berkeley-Harvard Degree Programs
    • LL.M. Programs
      • Current Academic Calendars
      • LL.M. Executive Track
        • Past LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendars
          • 2023 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2022 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2021 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2020 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2019 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2018 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
        • LL.M. Executive Track Courses
      • LL.M. Traditional Track
        • Current Academic Calendars
      • LL.M. Courses
      • Certificates of Specialization
      • Application & Admission
        • Steps to Apply
        • Application Forms & Deadlines
        • Eligibility & Admission Standards
        • Application Checklist
        • Admissions Policies
        • Check Application Status
      • Tuition & Financial Aid
        • Cost of Attendance
        • Scholarships
        • Ways to Fund Your Studies
          • Financial Aid Checklist for LL.M./J.S.D. Students
        • FAQ Financial Aid
      • Admitted Students
        • Visas
        • Housing Resources
        • Cancellation & Refund Policies
      • Join an Event & Connect with LL.M. Staff
        • Recruiting and Informational Events
        • Visit Us!
        • Contact Us
      • Meet Our Students
        • LL.M. Thesis Track Student Profiles
      • Meet Our Partners
      • Questions? Start Here
    • Doctoral Programs
      • J.S.D. Program
        • Application & Admission
          • Steps to Apply
          • Application Form & Deadline
          • Eligibility & Admission Standards
          • Application Checklist
          • Check Application Status
        • J.S.D. Tuition & Financial Aid
          • Cost of Attendance for JSD
          • Robbins J.S.D. Fellowship
        • J.S.D. Student Profiles
          • Zehra Betul Ayranci
          • Ella Corren
          • Silvia Fregoni
          • George Lambeth Vicent
          • Sylvia Si-Wei Lu
          • Natsuda Rattamanee
          • Youngmin Seo
          • Abdullah Alkayat Alazemi ’21
          • Mehtab Khan ’21
          • Maximilien Zahnd ’21
          • Shao-Man Lee ’20
          • Alvaro Pereira ’20
        • Contact Us
      • Ph.D. Program – Jurisprudence and Social Policy (JSP)
        • Events Calendar »
    • Certificates & Honors
    • Executive Education
    • Schedule of Classes
      • One Year Curriculum Planner
    • Current Academic Calendars
      • 2024-2025 Academic Calendar
      • 2025 LL.M. Executive Track Calendar
      • Past Academic Calendars
        • 2023-2024 Academic Calendar
        • 2022-2023 Academic Calendar
        • 2021-2022 Academic Calendar
        • 2020-2021 Academic Calendar
        • 2019-2020 Academic Calendar
        • 2018-2019 Academic Calendar
        • 2017-2018 Academic Calendar
        • 2016-2017 Academic Calendar
        • 2015-2016 Academic Calendar
        • 2014-2015 Academic Calendar
        • 2013-2014 Academic Calendar
        • 2012-2013 Academic Calendar
        • 2011-2012 Academic Calendar
        • 2010-2011 Academic Calendar
        • 2009-2010 Academic Calendar
        • 2008-2009 Academic Calendar
      • Future Academic Calendars
        • 2025-2026 Academic Calendar
    • Registrar
      • Order of the Coif and Dean’s List
      • Academic Rules
        • Supplemental Academic Rules for Traditional Track LL.M. Students
        • Academic Honor Code
        • Academic Rules Petition
        • Academic Rule 3.06 – applies to the Class of 2010 and before
        • Credit Hours
      • Registration
      • Transcripts
      • Verification of Attendance
      • Registrar’s Forms
      • Ordering a Diploma »
      • J.D. Academic Guidance
        • 3L Requirements FAQ
        • 3L Degree Worksheet
      • Registrar’s Student FAQ
      • Bar Information
        • State Bar Swearing-In Ceremony Information
          • State Bar Swearing-In Ceremony – Who’s Coming
    • Admissions Home
    • J.D. Admissions
      • Applying for the J.D. Degree
        • Ready to Apply
        • After You’ve Applied
        • Transfer & Visiting Student Applicants
        • Pre-Law Preparatory Academy
        • FAQs
      • Entering Class Profile
      • Connect with Admissions
        • Plan Your Visit
        • Virtual Engagement
        • Recruitment Events
        • Law Building Tour
        • View the Prospectus
        • Contact LL.M. Admissions
        • Contact J.S.P. Admissions
      • Meet Our Students
      • Studying at Berkeley Law
      • Living in the Bay Area
      • Concurrent & Combined Degree Programs
      • Faculty Admissions Policy
      • Financial Aid
        • Prospective and Entering Students
          • Entering Student Registration & Financial Aid Information
          • Financial Aid for International J.D. Students
          • Financial Aid for Undocumented J.D. Students
          • Legal Resident Information
        • Types of Aid
          • Scholarships
          • Loans
          • Work-Study
          • Native American Opportunity Plan
          • Financial Aid for Active Military and Veteran J.D. Students
          • Resources For Bar Related Expenses
        • How to Apply
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Entering Students
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Continuing Students
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Incoming Transfer Students
        • Tuition & Fees
          • Cost of Attendance Adjustments
        • Forms
        • PDST-Increase Offset Awards (PIOAs)
        • Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP)
          • LRAP Eligibility Guidelines
          • LRAP Eligibility Calculator
          • How to Apply for LRAP
          • LRAP Forms
          • Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)
          • News & Updates
          • LRAP & PSLF Testimonials
          • LRAP FAQs
        • Satisfactory Academic Progress
        • Withdrawals and Financial Aid
        • Info Sessions & Presentations
        • Financial Literacy
        • Financial Aid – J.D. Concurrent Degree Programs
        • FAQ & Glossary
        • Requesting a Financial Aid Award for a Student
        • About Our Team
      • Outreach Partnerships
      • Admitted Students – First-Year »
      • Admitted Students – Transfer & Visitor Status »
      • For Current Berkeley Law Students
      • Admissions Policies
      • ABA Required Disclosures »
    • LL.M. Admissions
    • J.S.D. Admissions
    • Ph.D. (JSP) Admissions
    • Visiting Scholar and Visiting Student Researcher Admissions
    • Faculty & Research Home
    • Faculty Experts by Topic
    • Faculty Profiles
    • Deans Emeritus Lecturers
    • Recent Faculty Scholarship
    • Awards and Honors
    • Faculty on Social Media
    • Faculty in the News
    • Featured Research
    • Centers, Institutes & Initiatives
    • Experiential Home
    • Clinical Program
      • Apply to the Clinics
      • Death Penalty Clinic
        • About the Clinic
          • Faculty and Staff
          • Alumni
        • Clinic News
        • Projects and Cases
          • Death Penalty Clinic Amicus Curiae Briefs
          • Guess Who’s Coming to Jury Duty?: How the Failure to Collect Juror Demographic Data Contributes to Whitewashing the Jury Box
          • Whitewashing the Jury Box: How California Perpetuates the Discriminatory Exclusion of Black and Latinx Jurors
        • Information for Students
        • Resources and Publications
          • Capital Defense Internships and Jobs
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • East Bay Community Law Center
      • Environmental Law Clinic
        • About the Clinic
        • Information for Students
        • Newsletters
        • Clinic News
        • Student Voices
        • Faculty and Staff
        • Alumni
        • Donate to the Clinic
        • Lawsuit Filed Over Radioactive Waste at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard
      • Global Rights Innovation Lab Clinic
        • About Us
        • Information for Students
      • Human Rights Clinic
        • About the Clinic
          • Alumni
          • Faculty and Staff
        • Clinic News
        • Projects and Cases
          • Featured Reports and Projects
          • Accountability and Transitional Justice
          • Promoting Human Rights in the United States
          • A Rights-Based Approach to Combating Poverty: Economic, Social & Cultural Rights
          • Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights
        • Resources and Publications by Focal Area
        • Information for Students
          • Student Self-Reflection
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • Policy Advocacy Clinic
        • About Us
        • People
          • Georgia Valentine
        • Clinic News
        • Resources and Publications
        • Juvenile Fees
          • COVID-19 Action on Juvenile Fees
          • Juvenile Fee Abolition in California
        • Adult Fees
          • Ending Unjust and Ineffective Criminal Fees in California
        • Students
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic
        • About
          • Faculty and Staff
          • Clinic Alumni
          • Partners
        • Clinic News
        • Our Work
        • Information for Students
        • Access Reports
      • Social Enterprise Clinic
        • About Us
        • Information for Students
        • Our Work
      • Clinical Program Annual Report
        • Annual Report Archive
      • The Brian M. Sax Prize for Excellence in Clinical Advocacy
        • Brian M. Sax
        • Recipients
    • Pro Bono Program
      • The Pro Bono Pledge
        • Definition of Pro Bono
      • Log Your Pro Bono Hours
        • Definition of Pro Bono
      • Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects (SLPS)
        • How to Apply
        • Current Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects
          • Animal Law and Advocacy
          • Arts and Innovation Representation
          • Berkeley Immigration Group
          • Berkeley Law Anti-Trafficking Project
          • Berkeley Law and Organizing Collective
          • Business Community Legal Advice Workshop
          • California Asylum Representation Clinic
          • Clean Energy Leaders In Law
          • Climate Migration & Displacement Project
          • Consumer Protection Public Policy Order
          • Contra Costa Reentry Project
          • Digital Rights Project
          • Disability Rights Project
          • Drug Policy, Education, and Decriminalization Project
          • East Bay Dreamers Project
          • Environmental Conservation Outreach
          • Family Defense Project
          • Food Justice Project
          • Foster Education Project
          • Free The Land Project
          • Gun Violence Prevention Project
          • Homelessness Service Project
          • International Human Rights Workshop
          • International Refugee Assistance Project
          • La Alianza Workers’ and Tenants’ Rights Clinic
          • Legal Automation Workshop
          • Legal Obstacles Veterans Encounter
          • Name and Gender Change Workshop
          • Native American Legal Assistance Project
          • Palestine Advocacy Legal Assistance Project
          • Police Review Project
          • Political and Election Empowerment Project
          • Post-Conviction Advocacy Project
          • Queer Justice Project
          • Reentry Advocacy Project
          • Reproductive Justice Project
          • Startup Law Initiative
          • Survivor Advocacy Project
          • Tenants’ Rights Workshop
          • Workers’ Rights Clinic
          • Youth Advocacy Project
        • How to Start a New SLP
        • Inactive Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects
          • AI Legal Workshop
          • Berkeley Abolitionist Lawyering Project
          • Berkeley Immigration Law Clinic
          • Berkeley Students in Support of Arts and Innovation
          • Civil Rights Outreach Project (CROP)
          • Community Restorative Justice Project
          • Community Defense Project
          • Juvenile Hall Outreach
          • Karuk-Berkeley Collaborative Legal
          • Local Economies and Entrepreneurship Project
          • Prisoner Advocacy Network
          • Wage Justice Clinic
          • Workers’ Rights Disability Law Clinic
      • Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips (BLAST)
        • Current Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips (BLAST)
          • Alaska
          • Atlanta
          • Central Valley
          • Hawai’i
          • Kentucky
          • Mississippi
          • Montana
          • U.S./Mexico Border
        • Inactive Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips
          • Los Angeles
          • South Texas
          • Tijuana
      • Call for Necessary Engagement in Community & Timely Response (CNECT)
        • Berkeley Law Afghanistan Project
        • Current & Past CNECT Partners
          • Hub for Equity in Administrative Representation
          • Racial Justice Legal Research Bank Project
        • CNECT News
      • Independent Projects
      • Opportunities for LL.M. Students
      • Supervising Attorneys
      • Pro Bono Spotlights
        • IRAP Project
        • David Nahmias
        • Angélica César & Mackenzie Gettel
        • Skylar Cushing
        • Addie Gilson & Eli McClintock-Shapiro
        • Tori Porell, Supervising Attorney FosterEd
        • Drug Policy, Education, and Decriminalization (DECrim) Project
        • Caity Lynch, JD ’25
        • Berkeley Immigration Group SLP Supervising Attorneys
        • Family Defense Project
        • Gabby Cirelli, JD ’24
        • Brooke D’Amore Bradley, JD ’23
        • Taiya Tkachuk, ’24
        • Emily Chuah ’24
        • Malak Afaneh ’24
        • KeAndra Hollis ’24
        • Maripau Paz ’24
        • Lucero Cordova ’23
        • Bharti Tyagi ’21
        • Benji Martinez ’23
        • Will Morrow ’23
        • Stephanie Clemente ’23
        • Francesco Arreaga ’21
        • Armbien Sabillo ’21
        • Kelsey Peden ’21
        • Jennifer Sherman ‘22
        • Professor Khiara M. Bridges
        • Professor Kristen Holmquist
      • Awards
      • Law Firm Pro Bono Programs
      • New York Bar Pro Bono Requirement
      • For Public Interest & Pro Bono Providers
    • Professional Skills Program
      • Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing Program
      • Elective Skills Courses
    • Advocacy Competitions Program
      • Eligibility by Class Year
      • Internal Competitions
        • McBaine Honors Moot Court
          • 2025 McBaine Competition
          • McBaine Honors Moot Court Competition 2024 Photo Essay
          • Previous Years’ McBaine Competitions
          • Past McBaine Winners
          • McBaine — Frequently Asked Questions
          • Helpful Materials
        • Halloum Negotiation Competition (Spring)
          • Competition FAQ
          • Previous Winners
        • Halloum Business Competition (Fall)
        • Bales Trial Competition
      • External Competitions (BOA)
        • BOA Tryouts
        • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Team
        • Moot Court Team
        • Tech & IP Team
        • Trial Team
      • Competition Videos
    • Field Placement Program
      • Testimonials
      • How to Apply
      • Judicial Externships
      • Civil Field Placements
      • Criminal Field Placements
      • Away Field Placements
        • The Hague
        • INHR Program
        • UCDC Law Program
      • For Supervisors and Host Organizations
        • BACE: Bay Area Consortium on Externships
      • Administrative Rules
      • Frequently Asked Questions
      • Field Placement Program Evaluation Database
    • Startup@BerkeleyLaw
      • Law Students
      • Entrepreneurs
        • How to Start a Startup @ Cal
        • FORM+FUND
        • Startup Law Initiative
      • Investors
    • Veterans Law Practicum
    • Ninth Circuit Practicum
    • Domestic Violence & Gender-Based Violence Practicum
      • About the Director
      • How to Apply
      • History & Impact
    • Careers Home
    • For J.D. Students
      • CDO Email Archive
      • Appointments and Drop-In Hours
      • Private Sector Careers
        • Explore Private Sector Careers
        • How to Apply to Private Sector Jobs
          • 2L Summer Private Sector Job Search
          • OCI Alternatives
      • Public Interest Careers
        • Explore Public Interest
          • Public Interest/Public Sector Employer Events & Resources
        • Find Public Interest Jobs
          • PI/PS Interviewing Resources
          • Using Interview Programs to Land Your 1L Summer Job
          • Your 2L and 3L PIPS Job Search
          • Post-Graduate Public Interest Fellowships
          • PI/PS Job Search Videos
        • Finance Your Public Interest Career
          • Summer Funding for PI/PS Internships & Judicial Externships
          • Berkeley Law Bridge and Public Interest Fellowships
      • Public Sector Careers
        • Federal Government Careers
        • State & Local Government Careers (incl. CA)
        • Careers in Policy/Politics
      • Judicial Clerkships
        • Application Instructions & Resources
        • Alumni Clerkship & Judicial Staff Directory
        • Clerkship and Interview Evaluations
        • Clerkship Yearbooks
        • Videos of Clerkship Programs
      • Judicial Externships
      • OCI Programs
      • Alternative Careers
    • For LL.M. Students
    • For Employers
      • Berkeley Law Recruiting Policies
      • Employer Resources for Virtual Internship Programs
      • Non Discrimination and Non Harassment Policies
      • Grading Policy
      • OCI Programs
      • Posting Job Listings
      • Reaching Berkeley Law J.D. Students
    • PSJD »
    • For Alumni
      • For Recent Graduate Job-Seekers
      • Enrichment Opportunities for Recent Grads
      • Executive Education
      • CDO Online Resources
      • Help the CDO
    • Careers in Law Teaching
      • Alumni Faculty Directory
      • Videos of Academic Placement Committee Programs
    • About CDO
      • CDO Staff News
    • Career Resource Library
    • Employment Outcomes
      • Employment Statistics
      • Judicial Clerkship Placement Statistics
  1. Home
  2. Articles
  3. News
  4. FCC Effectively Concedes Defeat on Net Neutrality

FCC Effectively Concedes Defeat on Net Neutrality

  • Share article on Facebook
  • Share article on Twitter
  • Share article on Bluesky
  • Share article on LinkedIn
  • Email article



By James Tuthill [1]

On
 February 19th,  the Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission, Tom Wheeler, said that the FCC would not appeal last month’s
Federal Court of Appeals decision overturning the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules,
Verizon
v. Federal Communications Commission, (D.C. Cir., Slip Op. No.
11-1355,
 Jan. 14, 2014.)  Those
rules prohibited discrimination and blocking by Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
who provide broadband, that is high speed, connections to the Internet.  Under
that ruling, if an ISP like Comcast wants to impede Internet traffic, as it did
several years ago
[2], it can
once again.
  While asserting that the FCC
supports an open Internet and will develop new rules to replace those thrown
out by the court, effectively the FCC has conceded defeat.
  Let’s look at what the Verizon decision did and said and then evaluate what the FCC just
proposed and why its actions translate into a loss for consumers and edge
providers.

In
Verizon, the court said that the
FCC’s Net Neutrality rules amount to regulating ISPs, such as Comcast and
Verizon, as “common carriers.”  It reasoned that because the FCC’s rules obligate
ISPs to act as common carriers the rules exceeded the FCC’s authority and are
invalid: “[w]e think it obvious that the Commission would violate the
Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common
carriers.  Given the Commission’s
still-binding decision to classify broadband [ISP] providers not as providers
of ‘telecommunications services’ but instead as providers of ‘information
services’…such treatment would run afoul of …[the definition of a Telecommunications
Carrier in the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, “the Act”]”  Slip Op. at 45.

The
court reached back to Nineteenth Century legal principles defining common
carriage and stated that the distinguishing characteristic of a common carrier in
the Twenty First Century is the “…requirement of holding oneself out to serve
the public indiscriminately.”  Slip Op.
at 48.  It then stated the principal
issue in the case: “…the question is whether, given the rules imposed by the
[FCC’s] Open Internet Order [which
established the Net Neutrality rules], broadband providers are now obligated to act as common
carriers.”  Slip Op. at 52.   It concluded that the anti-discrimination and
anti-blocking rules require the broadband ISPs to hold themselves out to “serve
the public indiscriminately” and therefore impermissively treat them as common
carriers. 

While
criticizing the FCC’s logic, the court’s reasoning is itself fuzzy and
confusing.  It primarily relies on Midwest
Video Corporation
v. FCC, 440 U.S. 689 (1979.)  That case, however, rested on the statutory
declaration that “***a person engaged in ***[television] broadcasting shall not,
insofar as such person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier.”  47 USC 153 (11.)  In contrast, the definition the court here
addressed is Telecommunications Carrier:  
“***A telecommunications carrier shall be
treated as a common carrier under this chapter only to the extent that it is
engaged in providing telecommunications services****” 47 USC 153 (51.)  The difference in the wording of the two
sections is significant: the first, applicable to broadcasters, fences off
their broadcasting activities from regulation as a common carrier; the second
says a telecom carrier will be regulated as a common carrier only to the extent
that it is providing telecom services.
But it is silent about whether or not the FCC may impose  some common carrier regulations on non-telecom
entities.  The court either misses this
distinction or ignores it.

The
court of appeals here also fails to grasp the context of Midwest Video which was essential to the rationale the Supreme
Court relied upon in invalidating the FCC’s rules under consideration in that
case.   There the court was concerned with
broadcasters’ journalistic independence which it noted was Congress’ rationale
behind the prohibition in section 47 USC 153 (11): “[The] provisio[n] clearly
manifest[s] the intention of Congress to maintain a substantial measure of
journalistic independence for the broadcast licensee.”  Midwest
Video
, supra at 705, citing Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., v. Democratic
National Committee
, 412 U.S. 94 at 116 (1973.)  This critical consideration is absent in the statutory
definition on which the court relied in Verizon.

Although
saying that it must be careful not to substitute its judgment for that of the
Commission, that is exactly what the court does.  It found that the FCC
has the authority to regulate ISP services, that is, Digital Subscriber Line
(DSL) and cable Internet connections, but declared that its rules prohibiting
discrimination and blocking exceeded its authority.  Although recognizing that the classification
of common carriage is not an all or nothing determination, and that “it is at
least logical to conclude that one may be a common carrier with regard to some
activities but not others….” Slip Op. at 51, the court concludes that the
application of the rules to broadband ISPs constitutes treating them as common
carriers. The court’s explanation is confusing and unpersuasive: it
fundamentally says that the FCC is wrong just because we say so. 

At its core, the principal disagreement
between the FCC and the court is what should be noncontroversial: the manner in
which the Internet functions and how ISPs provide services.  This different understanding of the facts is
the decisive factor in this case.  One or
the other is wrong.  Under the Chevron doctrine, Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), if a
statute subject to agency jurisdiction is ambiguous, and the agency’s
interpretation is reasonable, the court will defer to the agency’s
interpretation of the statute.  But here
the court doesn’t accept the agency’s explanation. This is one of the reasons Chairman
Wheeler is making a grave mistake in letting Verizon remain valid law instead of seeking a reversal before the
Supreme Court.

The
court seems to miss the fact that both end users and edge providers, like
Amazon, must purchase Internet connections from providers like Verizon and
Comcast and that in a connected data transmission, the providers to the end users
and the edge providers are frequently different.  That is, Amazon may purchase Internet
services from Verizon to connect its data farm to the Internet backbone and
Elizabeth, in San Francisco, may purchase her Internet connection from
Comcast.  Internet providers such as
Verizon and Comcast agree to exchange traffic under what are known as “peering”
agreements and each may use other wholesale network providers to carry
long-haul traffic among their switches. Thus, when Elizabeth logs onto Amazon’s
site the transmission is handled by both Comcast and Verizon and probably other
third party network providers too.  The
court fails to take note that there are originating, transport and terminating
components in Internet connections. The FCC tried to explain this, but its
arguments were dismissed by the court.  

The
court concludes that the FCC’s anti-discrimination and no blocking rules impose
the “serve all” aspect of common carriage because it says “if Amazon were now
to make a request for service, Comcast must
comply.  That is, Comcast must now
‘furnish…communications service upon reasonable request therefore.’ 47 U.S.C. §
201(a).”   Slip Op. at 52.  But nowhere do the FCC’s rules explicitly require Comcast to provide service;
rather, the rules apply if Comcast chooses
to provide broadband Internet service to an end user or an edge provider such
as Amazon or Netflix.  The No Blocking
rules states “[a] person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet
access service, insofar as such person is
so engaged
, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or
non-harmful devices****” (Emphasis supplied.)
The rule prohibiting Unreasonable Discrimination contains the same
proviso.  But nowhere in its discussion
does the court address this specific limitation in the rules. 

The
FCC had basically five options following the court’s decision: 1) seek a
rehearing or a rehearing en banc before the court of appeals; 2) reclassify
broadband Internet access services as Telecommunications services and treat
ISPs as common carriers; 3) appeal to the Supreme Court; 4) do nothing; or 5)
promulgate new rules.  Chairman Wheeler
took the fifth option.  Let’s evaluate
each.

A
rehearing or rehearing en banc would likely have been unsuccessful.  The panel vacated the rules, and therefore it
isn’t going to be swayed that they acted in error.  And, reversals on a rehearing en banc are
rare.  The FCC was right to pass on this
approach.

Various
stakeholders  have strongly argued that
the FCC should accept the court defeat and reclassify broadband Internet access
as a Telecommunications Service instead of the Information Services designation
it gave Internet broadband service several years ago.  This is the reclassification argument.  Its premise is that the FCC can change the
regulatory treatment of Internet broadband service and impose common carrier
requirements and achieve its goals of preventing discrimination and blocking by
merely reclassifying the regulatory treatment of broadband Internet services.  In a perfect world, this would be the right
approach.  In his statement, Chairman
Wheeler said that  he would retain this
as an option for the Commission “if warranted.”
He’s holding this club over the ISPs as a threat if his approach to
develop new rules is unsuccessful.  But
it’s a weak threat, because reclassification won’t work for several reasons.

 First, it will simply take too long: one to
two years to promulgate the new rules, and two or more years in court appeals.
It won’t be until near 2020 that the issue gets resolved, if ever.  (Just look at the FCC’s media ownership
rules.  They have been bouncing back and
forth between the Commission and the courts for over a decade.)  The Internet is morphing at light speed.  By the time the rules are in place they simply
won’t matter anymore. 

Second,
the FCC can expect an invasion of lobbyists and opponents as intense as
anything it has recently seen.
Republicans in Congress would vociferously oppose reclassification.  The argument will be the same tired and unproven
statement that regulation will stifle investment and innovation.  Armies of so called “experts” will be hired
to proselytize their message that reclassification will destroy the Internet.  It’s questionable whether or not the FCC will
be able to take the political heat. 

Third, there is a Supreme Court case
known as Brand X, (National Cable
& Telecommunications Ass’n
v. Brand X Internet Services, 545
U.S. 967 (2005)
)which
stands as a giant hurdle for the FCC to clear to successfully reclassify broadband
Internet services as Telecommunications Services.  That decision held that
the FCC’s determination that cable companies providing cable modem services
were not providing Telecommunications Services as defined in the Act and
therefore were not subject to the common carrier regulations of the Act, known
as Title II, was correct.  The FCC had
determined that cable companies offering cable modem service were not
“offering” Telecommunications Services because of the integrated nature of
Internet access and the high-speed wire used to provide Internet access and
therefore they were not subject to common carrier regulation.  The Court in Brand X applied the Chevron
doctrine, and accepted the FCC’s interpretation of the statute.

Of particular significance for the
reclassification argument is the Court’s statement in Brand X  that “[t]he entire
question is whether the products here are functionally integrated…or
functionally separate….That question turns not on the language of the Act, but
on the factual particulars of how Internet technology works
and how it is
provided, questions Chevron leaves to
the Commission to resolve in the first instance.”  (Emphasis supplied.) Brand X at 991.

Reclassification would require the FCC
to reach a contrary factual conclusion: that Internet broadband services do not
involve functionally integrated services but an offering of two separate
services: the connection to the Internet and the high-speed facility used to
enable that connection.
  While the
Supreme Court has stated that an agency is free to change its policy under
appropriate circumstances,
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
556 U.S. 502 at 517-518 (2009), it isn’t at all clear that an agency can change
the facts on which it bases its decisions so easily.
  And we can be sure that the formidable
opponents of reclassification will vigorously argue this point before the courts.
   It may
be for this reason alone that the Chairman has decided for the moment not to
seek reclassification.
   

The
FCC could have filed a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.  It is likely the Court would have taken the
appeal given the significance of the case and the involvement of a federal
agency.  As described above, the FCC has
a number of strong arguments to make: the court misconstrued the legal
consequences of its rules (they do not treat ISPs as common carriers), failed
to grasp how the Internet functions, failed to defer to the agency under the Chevron doctrine, failed to provide a
clear, cogent and convincing argument for its conclusion and substituted its judgment
for the FCC’s on national policy.  

And
given the present composition of the Court, the FCC stood a better than even
chance of success.  Three justices in the
majority in the Brand X decision, Justices Thomas, Kennedy and Breyer
remain and would be inclined to defer to the FCC as they did in Brand X.
Two new justices, Kagan and Sotomayor would be sympathetic to the FCC.   The Chief Justice might also have been
inclined to defer to the agency’s expertise on complex technical matters
involving network operations.  That’s at
least six votes.  It isn’t clear why the
Chairman choose not to pursue an appeal. 

Politically,
doing nothing was not an option.  President
Obama openly supported Net Neutrality and he appointed Chairman Wheeler.  Public interest and consumer groups, such as Public
Knowledge, would have unleashed the wrath of the Internet and social media on
the Chairman if he took no action.  And
Democrats in Congress, who only last week introduced legislation to restore the
rules, would have been irate.  Further,
the need to do something was escalated by the just announced acquisition of
Time Warner Cable by Comcast which will create a media behemoth serving 30
percent of the cable market.

The
Chairman has selected the fifth option, adopting new rules, to deal with the
court’s decision.  But that approach will
likely be of little actual beneficial force and effect for end users and edge
providers.  He said he would propose new
rules to “Fulfill the ‘no blocking’ goal…[and] … Fulfill the goals of the
non-discrimination rule.”  But how can he
legally do this in the face of the Verizon
decision?  The court has declared
that imposing no blocking and antidiscrimination rules amounts to treating the
ISPs as common carriers, and the Commission is prohibited from doing that.  We all know that calling a rose by any other
name does not change it from being a rose.
The court will see through the guise to pass new rules off as something other
than the rules it struck down, and it won’t buy it.  Additionally, the two Republican members of
the Commission will strongly oppose any new rules.  They both issued statements criticizing the
Chairman’s approach.

Additionally,
as noted with reclassification, promulgating new rules will just take too
long.  The original Net Neutrality rules
were proposed on October 22, 2009 after the FCC’s Net Neutrality “principles”
adopted four years earlier in 2005 failed.
It’s taken four years and three months to reach this point.  The future is too unpredictable to wait
another four or five years more for clarity.

Chairman
Wheeler also states that the Commission will “Hold Internet Service providers
to their commitment” to honor the safeguards in the invalidated rules.  But there is nothing he or the Commission can
now do to enforce those so called voluntary commitments except for imposing
conditions in Commission orders approving mergers; but of course, those orders don’t
extend to the entire industry.  As became
clear when Comcast was caught red handed impeding peer to peer traffic in 2007,
without valid rules, the FCC is mostly toothless.  Such is the situation now. 

Unfortunately,
the Chairman seems to have taken the course of least resistance to avoid
angering the various stakeholders: the ISPs and Republicans would oppose either
an appeal to the Supreme Court or reclassification and public interest groups
and Democrats would be furious if the Commission did nothing.  Even the court here in Verizon recognized the likely evils the rules sought to prohibit:
“[e]qually important, the Commission has adequately supported and explained
that absent rules such as those set forth in the Open Internet Order, broadband providers represent a threat to
Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed
and extent of future broadband deployment.
First, nothing in the record gives us any reason to doubt the
Commission’s determination that broadband providers may be motivated to
discriminate against edge providers.”
Slip Op. at 36-37.

But
Chairman Wheeler’s course of action, to adopt new rules, places the authority of
the Commission to police the Internet and protect end users and edge providers
in serious jeopardy given what the appellate court held and said in Verizon.
His approach cedes national policy to the court and power to control
Internet practices and traffic to providers like Comcast and Verizon.  And it leaves the Commission, the nation,
edge providers, end users and Internet entrepreneurs with an extremely bad judicial
precedent concerning what actual, effective and practical authority the FCC has
to prevent anti- consumer and anti- competitive practices by broadband ISPs.


1 James P. Tuthill received his J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law, and spent more than twenty years in the telecommunications industry. He was General Counsel of Pacific Bell Mobile Services and Vice President and General Counsel of Westwave Communications, Inc., a Silicon Valley startup. For the Past several years he has taught Telecommunications, Broadcast and Internet Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. 

2 In the Matters of Formal Complaint of Free Press and Public Knowledge Against Comcast Corporation for Secretly Degrading Peer-to-Peer Applications, Memorandum Opinion and Order, August 1, 2008, FCC 08-183, reversed Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010.)

02/20/2014

News

  • Transcript Magazine
    • Transcript Archive
      • Transcript Spring 2021 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2020 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2020 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2019 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2019 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2018 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2018 Online Edition
      • Transcript 2017 Online Edition
      • Transcript 2016 Online Edition
  • Podcasts
  • On Display
  • Media Highlights
  • News Archive
    • 2025 Archive
    • 2024 Archive
    • 2023 Archive
    • 2022 Archive
    • 2021 Archive
    • 2020 Archive
    • 2019 Archive
    • 2018 Archive
    • 2017 Archive
    • 2016 Archive
    • 2015 Archive
    • 2014 Archive
    • 2013 Archive
    • 2012 Archive
    • 2011 Archive
    • 2010 Archive
    • 2009 Archive
    • 2008 Archive
    • 2007 Archive
    • 2006 Archive
    • 2005 Archive
    • News Briefs
    • Alumni Newsletter
  • Trailblazing Women
  • Social Media
  • Communications Office
    • Media Release Form
    • UC Berkeley Law Logo (Identity)
      • Ordering Printed Supplies
  • Law School Images »
  • Twitter
  • Youtube
  • Instagram
  • Flickr
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • TikTok
  • About
  • Getting Here
  • Contact Us
  • Job Openings
  • ABA Required Disclosures
  • Feedback
  • For Employers
  • Accessibility
  • Relay 711
  • Nondiscrimination
  • Privacy Policy
  • UC Berkeley

© 2025 UC Regents, UC Berkeley School of Law, All Rights Reserved.