Net neutrality is officially on hold after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the rule from taking effect.
The court granted a stay, extending an earlier interim stay. This time, net neutrality will be blocked until a court decides otherwise after reviewing a petition from broadband providers opposing the rule. The ISPs successfully demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on the merits of the challenge, the jury wrote.
“The American public wants a fast, open and fair Internet,” FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement about the moratorium. “Today’s decision by the Sixth Circuit is a setback, but we will not give up the fight for net neutrality.”
After years of back-and-forth discussions, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted earlier this year to reinstate net neutrality rules. Net neutrality means that ISPs should not discriminate between different websites by blocking or limiting speed or access. A controversial part of the policy is the mechanism by which the FCC attempts to enforce these rules: reclassifying ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. ISPs have resisted the reclassification in large part because they say it could lead to greater government control over their businesses, which they say stifles innovation. For example, they said the classification could be used to impose price regulations, even though the FCC has said it does not intend to do so.
Chief Justice Jeffrey Sutton wrote in a unanimous opinion that the FCC’s inconsistency on intergovernmental net neutrality issues makes it difficult to even apply Skidmore deference. of lower standards, which it was thought might be a fallback measure now that agencies can no longer rely on Chevron’s respect. Quote skidmore“An agency’s persuasiveness depends on the thoroughness of its reasoning, technical expertise, and ‘consistency with prior and subsequent statements,’ particularly those contemporaneous with the enactment of the regulation,” Sutton wrote. . “The problem is, we don’t know which group of experts to respect.”
“The consistency inquiry makes matters worse,” he added. The committee’s “intention to change direction for the fourth time” suggests that its reasoning has more to do with changing the presidential administration than with arriving at real and lasting “legal implications.” related.
