- Trump quotes conspiracy theorist saying he’s the ‘second coming of God’ 4 Years Ago
- Parkland teens announce massive gun reform proposal 4 Years Ago
- Here’s how you can get a free palm reading online 4 Years Ago
- ‘The Matrix 4’ is happening with Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss Today 7:17 AM
- Fantasy football 2019: Your team-by-team NFC preview Today 7:00 AM
- The 10 best science podcasts to teach you about our world Today 6:00 AM
- How to make sure you have access to every Instagram filter Today 6:00 AM
- Trump accuses Jewish Democrats of having ‘great disloyalty’ or a ‘lack of knowledge’ Tuesday 8:02 PM
- 1 million ‘anonymous’ users of popular porn site exposed in breach Tuesday 6:56 PM
- Khloé Kardashian angers followers with a calorie-counting joke about True Tuesday 6:14 PM
- Spider-Man may no longer be part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Tuesday 5:28 PM
- Robert De Niro’s company is suing ex-employee for binge-watching Netflix at work Tuesday 4:41 PM
- Intentionally misgendering a character could get you banned from Borderlands 3 Tuesday 4:06 PM
- Facebook pulls Trump re-election ad for targeting ‘strong women’ Tuesday 4:03 PM
- Kamala Harris says she will restore net neutrality if elected Tuesday 3:16 PM
Here’s the legal argument cable companies are using against FCC net neutrality
Is the law on net neutrality’s side?
In the joint brief, the first of many filings related to the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the plaintiffs argue that the rules adopted in late February are illegal and represent an “extraordinary assertion of regulatory authority over the Internet.”
The FCC’s rules reclassify broadband Internet as a “telecommunications service” and subject it to Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Under Title II, Internet service providers cannot block, downgrade, or prioritize certain content. The rules represent an ambitious attempt by the commission to preserve an open Internet.
“To reach [its decision], the FCC distorts the Communications Act’s text and disregards the regulatory regime the statute codified.”
Internet service providers AT&T and CenturyLink joined trade groups U.S. Telecom, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the American Cable Association, CTIA – The Wireless Association, and the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association in filing the brief.
In the brief, the plaintiffs argue that Congress never intended to let the FCC to use the Communications Act, or the subsequent Telecommunications Act of 1996, to classify the Internet in this way.
“To reach [its decision], the FCC distorts the Communications Act’s text and disregards the regulatory regime the statute codified,” the brief says.
The companies also argue that the rules “will undermine future investment by large and small broadband providers, to the detriment of consumers,” a warning that the telecom industry cites frequently in attempting to avoid regulation.
Open-Internet supporters rallied to defend the FCC after opponents filed their brief.
“Legions of lawyers and lobbyists working for the phone and cable companies aren’t going to succeed this time in taking these rights away from Internet users,” Matt Wood, policy director at Free Press, said in a statement. “Their overheated rhetoric in these court cases ignores both the law and the way that Internet access actually operates.”
The appeals court may side with the FCC on its interpretation of the relevant laws, but the plaintiffs’ opening statement drives home the fact that the court battle over net neutrality has just begun.
Photo via Joe Gratz/Flickr (PD) | Remix by Jason Reed
Eric Geller is a politics reporter who focuses on cybersecurity, surveillance, encryption, and privacy. A former staff writer at the Daily Dot, Geller joined Politico in June 2016, where he's focused on policymaking at the White House, the Justice Department, the State Department, and the Commerce Department.