Today, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced its decision in Ohio Telecom Association v. FCC, which rejects the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to classify broadband as a ‘telecommunications’ service. This classification would have allowed the FCC to enforce the net neutrality rules enacted in its April 2024 Order. Public Knowledge filed a brief in this case.
The following can be attributed to John Bergmayer, Legal Director at Public Knowledge:
“Today’s decision represents a major setback for consumers, competition, and the Open Internet. In rejecting the FCC’s authority to classify broadband as a telecommunications service, the court has ignored decades of precedent and fundamentally misunderstood both the technical realities of how broadband works and Congress’ clear intent in the Communications Act.
“Beyond net neutrality, this ruling threatens the FCC’s ability to ensure broadband privacy protections, implement ever-more-important public safety measures, fight digital discrimination, promote broadband deployment, and maintain the universal service programs that both connect rural America, and help low-income Americans afford internet service. The court has created a dangerous regulatory gap that leaves consumers vulnerable and gives broadband providers unchecked power over Americans’ internet access.
“We strongly disagree with the court’s reasoning and its misapplication of Supreme Court precedent, including both the Brand X decision and the recent Loper Bright ruling. The FCC’s decision to classify broadband as an information service was only upheld in the Supreme Court in Brand X due to Chevron deference, with other courts previously finding that broadband was a ‘telecommunications’ or even a ‘cable’ service. Yet now, with Loper Bright overturning Chevron, a court has held for the first time that the ‘plain meaning’ of the statute, all along, is that broadband is, and can only be categorized as, an information service. If this was true, it’s what the Supreme Court would have said in 2005. If this was true, Justice Scalia would not have penned a persuasive dissent to Brand X, arguing that the only reasonable interpretation of the statute is that broadband is a telecommunications service. A ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ approach to the law undermines the ability of the government to govern, regardless of who is in power.
“Today’s ruling does leave in place the ability of states to enact and enforce their own net neutrality and broadband consumer protection laws, as many have done over the past several years. As the legal fight continues, we will continue to look to states and local governments to help lead on broadband policy, and to Congress to clarify the FCC’s authority – and responsibility – to protect the Open Internet and broadband users.”
You may view our brief for more information on this case or learn more about net neutrality.
Members of the media may contact Communications Director Shiva Stella with inquiries, interview requests, or to join the Public Knowledge press list at shiva@publicknowledge.org or 405-249-9435.