A federal court rejected a bid by cable and telecom companies to block net-neutrality rules Thursday, paving the way for the expansive new Internet regulations to take effect Friday.
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a relief to the Federal Communications Commission, which enacted the rules in February. But the legal battle over net neutrality is far from over.
Associations for the cable providers, telecom companies, and cellular carriers plan to continue their fight to repeal the rules after they take effect. The groups warn the regulations will stifle investment in broadband networks, ultimately leading to worse Internet service for everyone.
In a brief statement, the three judge panel of the D.C. Circuit said that the Internet providers had “not satisfied the stringent requirements” needed to suspend the rules while their lawsuit is pending.
The court did grant the request from both the companies and the FCC to fast-track the case to get a final ruling as soon as possible.
“This is a huge victory for Internet consumers and innovators!” FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said in a statement. “Starting Friday, there will be a referee on the field to keep the Internet fast, fair and open.”
The FCC’s net-neutrality rules bar Internet providers from blocking websites, selectively slowing down traffic, or creating “fast lanes” for sites that pay. Supporters of the rules argue that they are necessary to keep Internet providers from acting as gatekeepers and controlling what people can access online. President Obama, who promised to support net neutrality in his 2008 campaign, urged the FCC last November to enact the “strongest possible” rules.
The FCC first enacted net-neutrality rules in 2010, but the D.C. Circuit struck them down in early 2014. In attempt to bolster the chances of the new rules in court, the FCC dramatically expanded its own regulatory authority. The new rules classify Internet service under the same regulatory regime as telephones.
The industry groups argue that Congress never intended to subject Internet service to such a burdensome regulatory classification. The commission’s decision also violates rules for agency procedures, they claim.
The Internet providers say they only oppose classifying Internet service as a utility, and not the principle of net neutrality itself. But the FCC argues that overturning the regulatory classification would leave the rules unenforceable.
The industry groups said the D.C. Circuit’s ruling was disappointing, but not unexpected. Convincing a court to block rules before they even take effect is usually a legal long shot. But the groups praised the court for agreeing to expedite their lawsuit.
“We are now ready to get to the merits of the case and are confident as ever that we will prevail,” the National Cable and Telecommunications Association said in a statement.
What We're Following See More »
"The Supreme Court on Monday passed up its two opportunities this term to rule on when and whether states violate the Constitution by drawing electoral maps that sharply favor one political party." In a dispute over Maryland's congressional map, the Supreme Court "upheld a district court judge’s decision not to grant a preliminary injunction" blocking the map. In the Wisconsin case Gill v. Whitford, the justices ruled that Democratic voters lacked standing to challenge the redrawn electoral boundaries at the Supreme Court. Seven justices
"agreed to give the challengers another shot at making their case in the lower courts."
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross failed to keep his promise to divest from his company holdings upon entering government, a Forbes investigation has found. Ross reportedly kept his stakes in companies co-owned by the Chinese government, a firm linked to Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, and a Cyprus bank caught up in the Robert Mueller investigation. Forbes reports that Ross’s family continued to have an interest in these holdings while he dealt with China and Russia in his official role, even while knowing that his family’s fortunes were linked to the countries. Although the arrangements appear to be legal, Forbes says Ross may have broken the law by submitting a sworn statement to officials in November saying he divested of everything he promised he would. His spokesperson said Ross did not lie and has filed amended paperwork.
"The Pentagon has quietly empowered the United States Cyber Command to take a far more aggressive approach to defending the nation against cyberattacks, a shift in strategy that could increase the risk of conflict with the foreign states that sponsor malicious hacking groups." The policy change empowers the command to conduct cyberattacks against adversaries, including "nearly daily raids" against enemy networks and "non-kinetic" attacks against military targets. The purpose of the change, according to policy documents, is to “contest dangerous adversary activity before it impairs our national power" and to impel adversaries to "shift resources to defense and reduce attacks.”
Manuel Padilla, the Border Patrol chief for the Rio Grande Valley, expressed his desire to CBS News for action to be taken to address family separation at the border. Separations have spiked under the Trump Administration's "zero-tolerance" policy. "We created this situation by not doing anything," Padilla said, arguing that previous immigration policy had created a "vacuum" for other families to attempt to cross the border.
"As Trump signed a joint statement with Kim Jong Un that offered few details on how the North Korean leader would make good on his vow to denuclearize, Republicans on Capitol Hill said Tuesday that they want and expect the White House to submit any final agreement for their approval." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called for any agreement to be in the form of a treaty.