The debate over net neutrality defined a decade of telecommunications policy in the United States. At its core was a deceptively simple question: should internet service providers be allowed to treat different types of internet traffic differently? The FCC's attempts to answer that question produced three separate regulatory frameworks in seven years, two federal court reversals, and a policy landscape that remains unsettled.
The Open Internet Problem
When this article was published, the FCC had just seen its first Open Internet Order struck down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Verizon v. FCC. The court held that the FCC could not impose common carrier obligations on broadband providers without first classifying them as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This ruling set the stage for the FCC's 2015 reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service — a decision that was itself reversed in 2017 under a new administration.
The Classification Debate
The legal question was always about classification, not principle. Almost everyone agreed that an open internet was desirable. The disagreement was about whether the FCC had the statutory authority to mandate it, and if so, under which legal framework. This article examined the three available options: Title II common carrier regulation, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, and antitrust enforcement. Each carried distinct advantages and limitations, and the regulatory whiplash of subsequent years demonstrated that none offered a stable long-term solution.
Economic Arguments
ISPs argued that without the ability to manage traffic and charge content providers for priority delivery, they would lack incentives to invest in network infrastructure. Proponents of net neutrality countered that allowing paid prioritization would create a two-tiered internet, disadvantaging startups and smaller content providers unable to pay for fast lanes. The empirical evidence on both sides remained contested, though investment data from the Title II period (2015-2017) did not show the dramatic decline ISPs had predicted.
The net neutrality debate illustrates a recurring theme in technology law: the speed of technological change consistently outpaces the legal frameworks designed to govern it, a tension also visible in cryptocurrency regulation and data protection law.
Related articles: IP Privateering · E-Discovery in the Cloud · DNA Databases and Privacy
Frequently Asked Questions
What is net neutrality?
Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers should treat all internet traffic equally, without blocking, throttling, or charging differently based on content, website, or application. The debate centers on whether the FCC has the legal authority to enforce this principle and under which regulatory framework.
Why was the FCC's Open Internet Order struck down?
The D.C. Circuit Court ruled in Verizon v. FCC that the FCC could not impose common carrier obligations on broadband providers without first classifying them as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This ruling forced the FCC to choose between reclassification and a weaker regulatory approach.
Does net neutrality still exist in the United States?
The regulatory status of net neutrality in the U.S. has changed multiple times. The FCC adopted strong net neutrality rules in 2015, repealed them in 2017, and the issue continues to be debated in Congress, courts, and at the state level. Several states have enacted their own net neutrality laws.