The future of the open internet is in danger this October 31st, not from ghosts and goblins, but from the broadband companies that control internet access in most of the United States.  
 
These companies would love to use their oligopoly power to charge users and websites additional fees for “premium” internet access, which they can create by artificially throttling some connections and prioritizing others. Thanks to public pressure and a coalition of public interest groups, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has forbidden such paid prioritization and throttling, as well as outright blocking of websites. These net neutrality protections ensure that ISPs treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without improper discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services. 

But the lure of making more money without investing in better service or infrastructure is hard for broadband services like Comcast and AT&T to resist. So the big telecom companies have challenged the FCC’s rules in court—and their case has now made its way to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

A similar challenge was soundly rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016. Unfortunately the FCC, led by a new Chair, repealed those hard-won rules in 2017—despite intense resistance from nonprofits, artists, tech companies large and small, libraries, and millions of regular internet users. A few years later, FCC membership changed again, and the new FCC restored net neutrality protections. As everyone expected, Team Telecom ran back to court, leading to this appeal. 

A few things have changed since 2017, however, and none of them good for Team Internet. For one thing, the case is being heard in the Sixth Circuit, which is not bound by the D.C. Circuit’s earlier reasoning, and which has already signaled its sympathy for Team Telecom in a preliminary ruling. 

And, of course, the makeup of the Supreme Court has changed dramatically. Justice Kavanaugh, in particular, dissented from the D.C. Circuit majority when it reviewed the 2015 order—a dissent that clearly influenced the Sixth Circuit’s initial ruling in the case. That influence may well be felt when this case inevitably makes its way to the Supreme Court.   

The central legal questions are: 1) what did Congress mean when it directed the FCC to regulate “telecommunications services” differently from “information services,” and 2) into which category does broadband fall. This matters because the rules that we need to preserve the open internet — such as forbidding discrimination against certain applications — require the FCC to treat access providers like “common carriers,” treatment that can only be applied to telecommunications services. If the FCC has to define broadband as an “information service,” it can impose regulations that “promote competition” (good) but it cannot do much to forbid paid prioritization, throttling or blocking (bad). 

The answers to those questions will likely depend on whether the Sixth Circuit thinks regulation of the internet is a “major question,” meaning whether it is an issue has “vast economic or political significance.” If so, the Supreme Court has said that agencies can only address it if Congress has clearly authorized them to do so.  

The “major questions doctrine” is on the rise thanks to a Supreme Court majority that is deeply skeptical of the so-called administrative state. In the past few years, the majority has used it to reject multiple agency actions, such as the CDC’s temporary moratorium on evictions in areas hard-hit by Covid.  

Equally importantly, the Supreme Court recently changed the rules on whether and how court should defer to plausible agency interpretations of the statutes under which they operate. In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court ended an era of judicial deference to agency determinations. Rather than allowing agencies to act according to the agencies’ own plausible determinations about the scope and meaning of the authorities granted to them by Congress, courts are now instructed to reach those determinations independently.  
 
Ironically, under the old rule of deference, in 2003 the Ninth Circuit independently concluded that broadband was a telecommunications service – the most straightforward and correct reading of the statute and the one that provides a sound legal basis for net neutrality protections. In fact, the court said it had been erroneous for the FCC to say otherwise. But the FCC and telecoms successfully argued that the courts should defer to the FCC’s contrary reading, and won at the Supreme Court based on the doctrine of judicial deference that Loper Bright has now overruled. 

Putting these legal threads together, Team Telecom is arguing that the FCC cannot classify current broadband offerings as a telecommunications service, even though that’s the best reading of the statute, because that classification is be a “major question” that only Congress can decide. Team Internet argues that Congress clearly delegated that decision-making power to the FCC, which is one reason the Supreme Court did not treat the issue as a “major question” the last time it looked at the issue. Team Telecom also argues that, after the Loper Bright decision, the court need not defer to the FCC’s interpretation of its own authority. Team Internet explains that, this time, the FCC’s interpretation aligns with the best understanding of the statute and the facts. 
 
EFF stands with Team Internet and so should the court. It will likely issue a decision in the first half of 2025, so the specter of uncertainty will be with us for some time. Even when the panel issues an opinion, the losing side will be able to request that the full Sixth Circuit rehear the case, and then the Supreme Court would be the next and final resting place of the matter. 

Thanks to weeks of the public speaking up and taking action the FCC has recognized the flaw in their proposed net neutrality rules. The FCC’s final adopted order on net neutrality restores bright line rules against all forms of throttling, once again creating strong federal protections for all Americans.

The FCC’s initial order had a narrow interpretation of throttling that could have allowed ISPs to create so-called fast lanes, speeding up access to certain sites and services and effectively slowing down other traffic flowing through your network. The order’s bright line rule against throttling now explicitly bans this kind of conduct, finding that the “decision to speed up ‘on the basis of Internet content, applications, or services’ would ‘impair or degrade’ other content, applications, or services which are not given the same treatment.” With this language, the order both hews more closely to the 2015 Order and further aligns with the strong protections Californians already enjoy via California’s net neutrality law.

As we celebrate this victory, it is important to remember that net neutrality is more than just bright line rules against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization: It is the principle that ISPs should treat all traffic coming over their networks without discrimination. Customers, not ISPs, should decide for themselves how they would like to experience the internet. EFF—standing with users, innovators, creators, public interest advocates, libraries, educators and everyone else who relies on the open internet—will continue to champion this principle. 

In the absence of strong net neutrality protections, internet service providers (ISPs) have made all sorts of plans that would allow them to capitalize on something called "network slicing." While this technology has all sorts of promise, what the ISPs have planned would subvert net neutrality—the principle that all data be treated equally by your service provider—by allowing them to recreate the kinds of “fast lanes” we've already agreed should not be allowed. If their plans succeed, then the new proposed net neutrality protections will end up doing far less for consumers than the old rules did.

The FCC released draft rules to reinstate net neutrality, with a vote on adopting the rules to come the 25th of April. Overall, the order is a great step for net neutrality. However, to be truly effective the rules must not preempt states from protecting their residents with stronger laws and clearly find the creation of “fast lanes” via positive discrimination and unpaid prioritization of specific applications or services are violations of net neutrality.

Fast Lanes and How They Could Harm Competition

Since “fast lanes” aren’t a technical term, what do we mean when we are talking about a fast lane? To understand, it is helpful to think about data traffic and internet networking infrastructure like car traffic and public road systems. As roads connect people, goods, and services across distances, so does network infrastructure allow for data traffic to flow from one place to another. And just as a road with more capacity in the way of more lanes theoretically means the road can support more traffic moving at speed1, internet infrastructure with more “lanes” (i.e. bandwidth) should mean that a network can better support applications like streaming services and online gaming.

Individual ISPs have a maximum network capacity, and speed, of internet traffic they can handle. To continue the analogy, the road leading to your neighborhood has a set number of lanes. This is why the speed of your internet may change throughout the day. At peak hours your internet service may slow down because a slowdown has occurred from too much requested traffic clogging up the lanes.

It’s not inherently a bad thing to have specific lanes for certain types of traffic, actual fast lanes on freeways can improve congestion by not making faster moving vehicles compete for space with slower moving traffic, having exit and entry lanes in freeways also allows cars to perform specialized tasks without impeding other traffic. A lane only for buses isn’t a bad thing as long as every bus gets equal access to that lane and everyone has equal access to riding those buses. Where this becomes a problem is if there is a special lane only for Google buses, or for consuming entertainment content instead of participating in video calls. In these scenarios you would be increasing the quality of certain bus rides at the expense of degraded service for everyone else on the road.

An internet “fast lane” would be the designation of part of the network with more bandwidth and/or lower latency to only be used for certain services. On a technical level, the physical network infrastructure would be split amongst several different software defined networks with different use cases using network slicing. One network might be optimized for high bandwidth applications such as video streaming, another might be optimized for applications needing low latency (e.g. a short distance between the client and the server), and another might be optimized for IoT devices. The maximum physical network capacity is split among these slices. To continue our tortured metaphor, your original six lane general road is now a four lane general road with two lanes reserved for, say, a select list of streaming services. Think dedicated high speed lanes for Disney+, HBO, and Netflix, but those services only. In a network neutral construction of the infrastructure, all internet traffic shares all lanes, and no specific app or service is unfairly sped up or slowed down. This isn’t to say that we are inherently against network management techniques like quality of service or network slicing. But it’s important that quality of service efforts be undertaken, as much as possible, in an application agnostic manner.

The fast lanes metaphor isn’t ideal. On the road having fast lanes is a good thing, it can protect more slow and cautious drivers from dangerous driving and improve the flow of traffic. Bike lanes are a good thing because they make cyclists safer and allow cars to drive more quickly and not have to navigate around them. But with traffic lanes it’s the driver, not the road, that decides which lane they belong in (with penalties for doing obviously bad faith things such as driving in the bike lane.)

Internet service providers (ISPs) are already testing their ability to create these network slices. They already have plans of creating market offerings where certain applications and services, chosen by them, are given exclusive reserved fast lanes while the rest of the internet must shoulder their way through what is left. This kind of networking slicing is a violation of net neutrality. We aren’t against network slicing as a technology, it could be useful for things like remote surgery or vehicle to vehicle communication which requires low latency connections and is in the public interest, which are separate offerings and not part of the broadband services covered in the draft order. We are against network slicing being used as a loophole to circumvent principles of net neutrality.

Fast Lanes Are a Clear Violation of Net Neutrality

Where net neutrality is the principle that all ISPs should treat all legitimate traffic coming over their networks equally, discriminating between  certain applications or types of traffic is a clear violation of that principle. When fast lanes speed up certain applications or certain classes of applications, they cannot do so without having a negative impact on other internet traffic, even if it’s just by comparison. This is throttling, plain and simple.

Further, because ISPs choose which applications or types of services get to be in the fast lane, they choose winners and losers within the internet, which has clear harms to both speech and competition. Whether your access to Disney+ is faster than your access to Indieflix because Disney+ is sped up or because Indieflix is slowed down doesn’t matter because the end result is the same: Disney+ is faster than Indieflix and so you are incentivized to use Disney+ over Indieflix.

ISPs should not be able to harm competition even by deciding to prioritize incumbent services over new ones, or that one political party’s website is faster than another’s. It is the consumer who should be in charge of what they do online. Fast lanes have no place in a network neutral internet.

• 1. Urban studies research shows that this isn’t actually the case, still it remains the popular wisdom among politicians and urban planners.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has released draft rules to reinstate net neutrality, with a vote on adopting the rules to come on the 25th of April. The FCC needs to close some loopholes in the draft rules before then.

Proposed Rules on Throttling and Prioritization Allow for the Circumvention of Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the principle that all ISPs should treat all traffic coming over their networks without discrimination. The effect of this principle is that customers decide for themselves how they’d like to experience the internet. Violations of this principle include, but are not limited to, attempts to block, speed up, or slow down certain content as means of controlling traffic.

Net neutrality is critical to ensuring that the internet remains a vibrant place to learn, organize, speak, and innovate, and the FCC recognizes this. The draft mostly reinstates the bright-line rules of the landmark 2015 net neutrality protections to ban blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

It falls short, though, in a critical way: the FCC seems to think that it’s not okay to favor certain sites or services by slowing down other traffic, but it might be okay to favor them by giving them access to so-called fast lanes such as 5G network slices. First of all, in a world with a certain amount of finite bandwidth, favoring some traffic necessarily impairs other traffic. Secondly, the harms to speech and competition would be the same even if an ISP could conjure more bandwidth from thin air to speed up traffic from its business partners. Whether your access to Spotify is faster than your access to Bandcamp because Spotify is sped up or because Bandcamp is slowed down doesn’t matter because the end result is the same: Spotify is faster than Bandcamp and so you are incentivized to use Spotify over Bandcamp.

The loophole is especially bizarre because the 2015 FCC already got this right, and there has been bipartisan support for net neutrality proposals that explicitly encompass both favoring and disfavoring certain traffic. It’s a distinction that doesn’t make logical sense, doesn’t seem to have partisan significance, and could potentially undermine the rules in the event of a court challenge by drawing a nonsensical distinction between what’s forbidden under the bright-line rules versus what goes through the multi-factor test for other potentially discriminatory conduct by ISPs.

The FCC needs to close this loophole for unpaid prioritization of certain applications or classes of traffic. Customers should be in charge of what they do online, rather than ISPs deciding that, say, it’s more important to consume streaming entertainment products than to participate in video calls or that one political party’s websites should be served faster than another’s.

The FCC Should Clearly Rule Preemption to be a Floor, Not a Ceiling

When the FCC under the previous administration abandoned net neutrality protections in 2017 with the so-called “Restoring Internet Freedom” order, many states—chief among them California—stepped in to pass state net neutrality laws. Laws more protective than federal net neutrality protections—like California's should be explicitly protected by the new rule.

The FCC currently finds that California’s law “generally tracks [with] the federal rules[being] restored. (269)” It goes on to find that state laws are fine so long as they do not “interfere with or frustrate…federal rules,” are not “inconsistent,” or are not “incompatible.” It then reserves the right to revisit any state law if evidence arises that a state policy is found to “interfere or [be] incompatible.”

States should be able to build on federal laws to be more protective of rights, not run into limits to available protections. California’s net neutrality is in some places stronger than the draft rules. Where the FCC means to evaluate zero-rating, the practice of exempting certain data from a user’s data cap, on a case-by-case basis, California outright bans the practice of zero rating select apps.

There is no guarantee that a Commission which finds California to “generally track” today will do the same in two years time. The language as written unnecessarily sets a low bar for a future Commission to find California’s, and other states’, net neutrality laws to be preempted. It also leaves open unnecessary room for the large internet service providers (ISPs) to challenge California’s law once again. After all, when California’s law was first passed, it was immediately taken to court by these same ISPs and only after years of litigation did the courts reject the industry’s arguments and allow enforcement of this gold standard law to begin.

We urge the Commission to clearly state that, not only is California consistent with the FCC’s rules, but that on the issue of preemption the FCC considers its rules to be  the floor to build on, and that further state protections are not inconsistent simply because they may go further than the FCC chooses to.

Overall, the order is a great step for net neutrality. Its rules go a distance in protecting internet users. But we need clear rules recognizing that the creation of fast lanes via positive discrimination and unpaid prioritization are violations of net neutrality just the same, and assurance that states will continue to be free to protect their residents even when the FCC won’t.

Tell the FCC to Fix the Net Neutrality Rules:

1. Go to this link
2. For "Proceeding" put 23-320
3. Fill out the form
4. In "brief comments" register your thoughts on net neutrality. We recommend this, which you can copy and paste or edit for yourself:

Net neutrality is the principle that all internet service providers treat all traffic coming through their networks without discrimination. The effect of this principle is that customers decide for themselves how they’d like to experience the internet. The Commission’s rules as currently written leave open the door for positive discrimination of content, that is, the supposed creation of fast lanes where some content is sped up relative to others. This isn’t how the internet works, but in any case, whether an ISP is speeding up or slowing down content, the end result is the same: the ISP picks the winners and losers on the internet. As such the Commission must create bright line rules against all forms of discrimination, speeding up or slowing down, against apps or classes of apps on general traffic in the internet.

Further, while the Commission currently finds state net neutrality rules, like California’s, to not be preempted because they “generally track” its own rules, it makes it easy to rule otherwise at a future date. But just as we received net neutrality in 2015 only to have it taken away in 2017, there is no guarantee that the Commission will continue to find state net neutrality laws passed post-2017 to be consistent with the rules. To safeguard net neutrality, the Commission must find that California’s law is wholly consistent with their rules and that preemption is taken as a floor, not a ceiling, so that states can go above and beyond the federal standard without it being considered inconsistent with the federal rule.

Take Action

Tell the FCC to Fix the Net Neutrality Rules

EFF has long advocated for affordable, accessible, future-proof internet access for all. Nearly 80% of Americans already consider internet access to be as essential as water and electricity, so as our work, health services, education, entertainment, social lives, etc. increasingly have an online component, we cannot accept a future where the quality of your internet access—and so the quality of your connection to these crucial facets of your life—is determined by geographic, socioeconomic, or otherwise divided lines. 

Lawmakers recognized this during the pandemic and set in motion once-in-a-generation opportunities to build the future-proof fiber infrastructure needed to close the digital divide once and for all.

As we exit the pandemic however, that dedication is wavering. Monopolistic internet service providers (ISPs), with business models that created the digital divide in the first place, are doing everything they can to maintain control over the broadband market—including stopping the construction of any infrastructure they do not control. Further, while some government agencies are continuing to make rules to advance equitable and competitive access to broadband, others have not. Regardless, EFF will continue to fight for the vision we’ve long advocated.

New York City Abandons Revolutionary Fiber Plan 

This year, New York City Mayor Eric Adams turned his back on the future of broadband accessibility for New Yorkers.

In 2020, then Mayor Bill de Blasio unveiled New York City’s Internet Master Plan to deliver broadband to low-income New Yorkers by investing in public fiber infrastructure. Public fiber infrastructure would have been an investment in New York City’s future, a long-term solution to permanently bridge the digital divide and bring affordable, accessible future-proof service to New Yorkers for generations to come. This kind of public infrastructure, especially if provisioned on an open and affordable basis dramatically lowers barriers to entry, which in turn creates competition, lower prices, and better customer service in the market as a whole.

Mayor Eric Adams not only abandoned this plan, but subsequently introduced a three-year $90 million dollar subsidy plan called Big Apple Connect. Instead of building physical infrastructure to bridge the digital divide for decades to come, New York City will now subsidize NYC’s oligopolist ISPs, Charter Spectrum and Altice, to continue doing business as usual. This does nothing to address the needs of underinvested communities whose legacy networks physically cannot handle a fast connection. All it does is put taxpayer dollars into corporate pockets instead of into infrastructure that actually serves the people.

The Adams administration even asked a cooperatively-run community based ISP that had been a part of the Internet Master Plan and had already installed fiber infrastructure to dismantle their network so the city can further contract with the big ISPs.

California Wavers On Its Commitments

New York City is not the only place public commitment to bridging the digital divide has wavered. 

In 2021, California invested nearly $7 billion to bring affordable fiber infrastructure to all Californians. As part of this process California’s Department of Technology was meant to build 10,000 miles of middle-mile fiber infrastructure, the physical foundation through which community-level last mile connections would be built to serve underserved communities for decades to come.

Unfortunately, in August the Department of Technology not only reduced the number of miles to be built but also cut off entire communities that had traditionally been underserved. Despite fierce community pushback, the Department of Technology stuck to their revised plans and awarded contracts accordingly.

Governor Newsom has promised to restore the lost miles in 2024, which EFF and California community groups intend to hold him to, but the fact remains that the reduction of miles should not have been done the way they were.

FCC Rules on Digital Discrimination and Rulemaking on Net Neutrality

On the federal level, the Federal Communications Commission finally received its fifth commissioner in Anna Gomez September of this year, allowing them to begin their rulemaking on net neutrality and promulgate rules on digital discrimination. We submitted comments on the net neutrality proceeding, advocating for a return to light-touch, targeted, and enforceable net neutrality protections for the whole country.

On digital discrimination, EFF applauds the Commission for adopting a disparate treatment as well as disparate impact standard. Companies can now be found liable for digital discrimination not only when they intentionally treat communities differently, but when the impact of their decisions—regardless of intent—affect a community differently.  Further, for the first time the Commission recognized the link between historic redlining in housing and digital discrimination, making the connection between the historic underinvestment of lower income communities of color and the continued underinvestment by the monopolistic ISPs.

Next year will bring more fights around broadband implementation. The questions will be who gets funding, whether and where infrastructure gets built, and whether long-neglected communities will finally be heard and brought into the 21st-century or left behind by public neglect or private greed. The path to affordable, accessible, future-proof internet for all will require the political will to invest in physical infrastructure and hold incumbents to nondiscrimination rules that preserve speech and competition online.

This article is part of our Year in Review series. Read other articles about the fight for digital rights in 2023.

Network neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services. It is a principle that must be upheld to protect the open internet. The idea that ISPs could prevent access to certain sites, slow down rates and speeds for certain users, isn’t just horrendous— it’s vastly unpopular. When ISPs charge tolls or put up road-blocks, it comes at the expense of all segments of society, and undermines internet access as a right.

The FCC will meet on October 19th to vote on proposing Title II reclassification that would support accompanying net neutrality protections. Based on a draft version of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC will propose to reestablish the Commission’s authority to issue net neutrality rules for broadband internet access service by classifying it as a “telecommunications service” under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. If the FCC issues the notice as expected on October 19th, the next steps would be a public comment phase followed by issuance of a final rule. This process could result in a final rule restoring net neutrality requirements around spring of 2024.

We’re glad that the FCC is finally taking steps to bring back net neutrality. Title II provides a clear avenue for the FCC to exercise authority to enact net neutrality rules that will stand up to a challenge in court. For years, the FCC incorrectly classified broadband access as an “information service,” and when it tried to impose even a weak version of net neutrality protections under that classification, they were struck down in court. We’ve had victories in the past on this issue thanks to the overwhelming support of millions of Americans, and we need the FCC to do the right thing now.

The classification of broadband as a Title II “telecommunications service” is not only correct as a factual matter and proven to be legally defensible, it also provides the FCC the tools it needs to issue narrow regulations that address the proven need for net neutrality rules, while forbearing from any provisions of Title II that might be unnecessary.

The internet should live up to its history of fostering innovation, creativity, and freedom. When ISPs act as gatekeepers, making special deals with a few companies or privileging their own services, we all lose. Hopefully, on October 19th the FCC will show all Americans that it knows how the internet works, and will put people over ISPs once and for all.