consumers’ ability to access the content and use of applications of their choice, contravening its Internet Policy Statement.” Comcast agreed to a new system for managing bandwidth demand on its network. Despite this, the agency’s Order required Comcast to disclose its new network management practices to customers and provide progress updates on implementation.
discrimination requirements on broadband providers. The same appellate court subsequently struck down these rules in Verizon v.
recognized that broadband providers have incentives that “represent a threat to Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately
Net Neutrality Heats Up: The Commission was reluctant to impose Title II, public utility regulation on the Internet. In a blog entry last April, Chairman Wheeler outlined the Commission’s next iteration of net neutrality rules. The rules should:
Comcast challenged the Order in court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit determined the agency lacked authority to exercise adjudicatory power over Comcast’s network management practices. In the intervening years, the White House flipped from Republican to Democrat control. The GOP Chairman of the FCC was replaced by a Democrat and control of the Commission followed suit. In 2010, the Commission adopted formal net neutrality rules imposing disclosure, anti-blocking and anti-
the FCC with a roadmap for imposing more stringent net neutrality obligations in the future if it chose to do so; the agency could reclassify broadband Internet access as a “telecommunications service” subject to Title II of the Communications Act (i.e., public utility obligations).
FCC. But this time, the Court provided the Commission with some further guidance. In its opinion, the Court
inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment.” Despite striking down the 2010 net neutrality rules, the Court provided
1) Require ISPs to transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their networks. 2) Prevent ISPs from blocking legal content. 3) Prevent ISPs from acting in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the internet, including favoring traffic from an affiliated entity.