May 23, 2012

FCC Approves Controversial Net Neutrality Rules

On December 21, 2010, the FCC approved controversial net neutrality rules in a party-line vote.  Democratic Commissioners Copps and Clyburn joined Chairman Genachowski in approving the Order, despite concerns that it did not go far enough.  Republican Commissioners McDowell and Baker wrote lengthy dissents, arguing that the FCC had stepped far beyond its regulatory authority in approving Internet regulations.

According to the Order, the rules can be summarized as achieving three main objectives: (i) transparency; (ii) no blocking; and (iii) no unreasonable discrimination. More specifically, "fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services." Additionally, "[f]ixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services." Finally, "[f]ixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic." 

The regulations have garnered much criticism. Those who believe the FCC has overstepped its regulatory authority have called for reversal either by Congress or the courts. Indeed, Hill Republicans have vowed to reverse the new FCC rules. Commissioners McDowell and Baker both expressed dismay at the FCC's attempt to regulate a sector of the economy that, in their view, needs no fixing, particularly in light of the D.C. Circuit's recent decision that enforcement of net neutrality principles is beyond the FCC's authority.

Those who believe the Order did not go far enough complain that the rules apply primarily to fixed broadband providers, leaving wireless providers largely exempted, and that the rules do not expressly prohibit "paid prioritization," which would allow content providers to pay for faster transmission of their data. 

Chairman Genachowski has defended the new regulations, stating in an interview with Gary Shapiro, head of the Consumer Electronics Association, "Our hope is that there's an outcome here that preserves a free and open Internet [that will] promote innovation, protect the free flow of information … and preserve and accelerate the kind of economic activity that we've seen out of this platform for the last several decades."

Whether the FCC's net neutrality rules can withstand judicial review and Congressional challenge remains to be seen.

Copyright © 2012, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

About the Author

Partner

Chris Huther is a partner in the Business Trials Practice Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office and is the leader of the firm’s Communications practice.

202-772-5374

About the Author

Partner

Megan Troy is a partner in the Business Trials and Communications practice groups in the firm's Washington, D.C. office.

202-772-5373

Contributors

Partner

Mr. Weimer is a partner in the Corporate and Communications practice groups in the firm's Washington, DC office.

202-469-4904

About the Author

Associate

Ms. Cohen is an associate in the Business Trials Practice Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office.

202-469-4947

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.