United States: The Open Road Ahead For The FCC's Open Internet Rules

Last Updated: August 13 2015
Article by Bryan N. Tramont and Brian Murray

This past year has seen intense debate about "open Internet" or "net neutrality" regulation. Issues such as whether prescriptive rules are needed to preserve the Internet as an open platform and whether the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") can lawfully adopt them have consumed considerable ink—and more appropriately for this context, innumerable pixels—in the press (both popular and trade), scholarly articles, filings with the FCC, and ultimately, the agency's own 400-page order. There, three Democratic commissioners answered these and other questions in a manner that subjects Internet service providers ("ISPs") to a "modernized" form of common carrier regulation, consisting of many of the obligations that traditionally applied to public utilities as well as additional requirements intended to protect Internet openness.

The release of the FCC's order on March 12 did not mark the end of the matter; it merely shifted the action to other forums. In the coming weeks, months, and years, the substance and fate of the FCC's rules will be decided in several arenas, with plenty of room for participation by industry and other stakeholders. The following discussion provides an overview of the FCC's order and some of its history, and then describes the next battlefields in the ongoing war over the proper regulatory treatment of the Internet.

The FCC's Order

The FCC's recent order is the agency's third attempt at net neutrality regulation—and its third trip to the D.C. Circuit on the subject. In 2008, the FCC relied on its ancillary authority to penalize Comcast for its practices in connection with peer-to-peer file sharing; in 2010, the D.C. Circuit rejected that effort, finding that the agency's ancillary authority did not extend far enough to support that enforcement action.1 In December 2010, the FCC tried again but swept more broadly, citing the directive in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that it act to encourage broadband deployment to justify rules that prohibited ISPs from blocking lawful traffic online and from engaging in unreasonable discrimination, and required them to disclose certain information about their network management practices, service performance, and terms of service. In 2014, the D.C. Circuit upheld the disclosure rule but rejected the others, finding that the FCC essentially had sought to impose common carrier regulations on ISPs despite long ago declining to treat them as common carriers2—an approach that the Supreme Court previously endorsed.3

Shortly thereafter, the FCC initiated the rulemaking that ultimately produced the recent order. Given the recurring disputes about the agency's authority to act in this area, a central issue of contention in that proceeding was whether the FCC should again proceed based on Section 706 (but with a rationale that hewed more closely to the D.C. Circuit's decision), or whether it should go further and classify ISPs as common carriers subject to all of the regulations that apply to "telecommunications services" under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and to new open Internet rules. There was no shortage of opinion on the subject. The FCC later reported that it received over 4 million public comments in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking. One of the more momentous opinions expressed was that of President Obama, who in November 2014 took the unusual step of producing an online video that called for the FCC to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and to impose open Internet protections on that basis.

That is the option the FCC ultimately chose. In its order, the FCC reversed several decades of deregulatory precedent and classified ISPs' broadband Internet access services as "telecommunications services," triggering the Title II provisions and the FCC's implementing rules—some of which the FCC then decided it would forbear from enforcing. As a result, ISPs must now comply with a variety of obligations that previously only applied to telephone companies, ranging from basic filing requirements to privacy safeguards to disability access requirements to many other areas. Then, relying on the authority conferred by that classification decision, the FCC proceeded to also subject ISPs to a series of open Internet protections, consisting of: (i) bright-line prohibitions on blocking or throttling (i.e., impairing or degrading) lawful online traffic and on so-called "paid prioritization" arrangements (i.e., those favoring certain traffic in exchange for compensation or some other benefit); (ii) a general "Internet conduct standard," by which the FCC will assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether ISP practices unreasonably interfere with or disadvantage the ability of consumers to conduct their activities online or of "edge providers" (e.g., Netflix, Google, and similar online entities) to make their services and content available; and (iii) "enhanced" transparency requirements that require ISPs to disclose additional information about their services (supplementing the disclosure obligations that survived the D.C. Circuit's last review). The FCC also stated that it would, for the first time, scrutinize ISPs' interconnection arrangements.4

The controversial nature of these rulings was underscored by the strong dissents of the two Republican FCC commissioners, who argued that the classification reversal and the new open Internet safeguards were unnecessary (because there is no evidence of any actual problem to be fixed), unlawful (because the departure from longstanding precedent and the Supreme Court's affirmance of it was unjustifiable), harmful (because the burdens of the rules would impede innovation and investment), and procedurally flawed (because the rulings were the product of a flawed and politicized process). The dissents effectively offered a roadmap to an appeal, a route that many petitioners quickly sought to travel.

The Courts

After the order's release, attention moved to the appellate courts—several of them, in fact. Even before the FCC's order was published in the Federal Register (which normally starts the appellate clock ticking), various parties filed petitions for review with the D.C. Circuit and Fifth Circuit on behalf of certain ISPs; after publication, the same parties filed again, as did others, adding the Third Circuit to the mix. The D.C. Circuit appears to be the venue of choice and chance: That court prevailed in a lottery to hear the initial appeal, and the FCC later asked (with the consent of all petitioners) that all pending challenges be transferred there. The other courts have agreed, meaning that the D.C. Circuit will reprise its role as the judicial arbiter of the FCC's attempts to regulate the Internet.

In fact, the D.C. Circuit already faces its first question, as a coalition of ISPs and their representative trade associations asked that court to stay the reclassification ruling and the Internet conduct standard pending appeal and before the order's June 12 effective date. Stays are an extraordinary remedy—they are only warranted where, among other factors, a challenge is likely to prevail and the rules at issue would impose irreparable harm (as the ISPs argue here). However, a grant of the stay would signal judicial skepticism of the FCC's actions that, apart from its implications for the actual appeal, would have immediate political ramifications.

At this early stage, the timing for a final ruling is unclear. The petitioners have asked that the court expedite the appeal—in which case, briefing could occur as early as this summer, with oral argument in the fall and a decision possible by the first quarter of 2016. Otherwise, briefing could be delayed until the fall, with oral arguments in the winter and a decision as late as the summer of 2016. (During the last appeal, oral argument did not occur until two years after petitions for review were filed, with a decision coming roughly four months afterward.)

Not surprisingly, all sides predict they will prevail, although partial victories are possible. Total victory for the FCC would be for the appeals court to affirm the order and rules in full and to bless the use of its authority, allowing the agency to advance other regulatory priorities; total victory for the ISPs would be for the court to vacate the decision in its entirety. But in between those extremes lie a number of other possibilities. For instance, the FCC stated that each of its open Internet rules and its classification decision are separate and severable from each other, such that a court could stay or invalidate one without disturbing the others. The court also could remand the order to the agency to improve its stated rationale for the rules, leading to a repeat of the entire process. Once the briefing begins in earnest, the relative likelihood of these various scenarios may become clearer. Of course, even then, the eventual losing side could seek rehearing en banc or certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. One way or the other, judicial closure is not imminent. Moreover, by early 2017, a new party could take control of the White House—and thus, of the FCC—which potentially could dictate the course of any litigation.


The FCC's action also spurred congressional activity. Net neutrality is not a new topic on Capitol Hill: Discussions of a possible legislative solution have proceeded in parallel with the FCC's rulemakings, and various members of Congress have kept close tabs on the agency. The action now could go in several directions.

First, Congress could nullify the FCC's open Internet rules on a relative fast track through the Congressional Review Act ("CRA"). The CRA requires the FCC to send its order and rules to Congress (and to the Government Accountability Office), which is permitted to review "major" rules before they become effective and to enact a joint resolution disapproving—and thereby invalidating—them. Republicans in the House and Senate (led by Representative Doug Collins of Georgia and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, respectively) have introduced companion resolutions to do just that. Following a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress, a joint resolution of disapproval could be presented to the President for signature—which, under the CRA's deadlines, would need to happen by June 12. But the CRA process is unlikely to doom the FCC's order. Even if Republicans could pass these resolutions over Democratic opposition, a presidential veto is all but inevitable. (Indeed, in 2011, after the FCC last attempted to adopt open Internet rules, the same process ultimately failed.)

Congress also could repeal or replace the FCC's rules through more conventional legislative processes—albeit subject to filibuster and the usual wrangling. Even before the FCC voted on the order, House and Senate Republican Commerce Committee leadership held hearings on a discussion draft of legislation that would prohibit ISPs from blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization but would otherwise limit the FCC's authority to regulate in this area. Thus far, a bipartisan legislative compromise has been elusive. Republicans have led that effort, and despite some hints of receptiveness from a few key Democrats, there has not yet been much momentum. But a grant of the stay request mentioned above could be a catalyst in that initiative, since Democrats may feel compelled to support a legislative fix rather than risk being left with no open Internet rules at all. In addition, there is not necessarily a consensus regarding the best way to address open Internet issues. For instance, Republican House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte—an outspoken critic of the FCC's rules—has suggested that the rules should be repealed and that antitrust law offers the best solution, since it protects competition and thus, the theory goes, Internet openness.

Separately, Congress may use the appropriations process to limit the FCC's ability to implement its rules. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Financial Services and General Government must approve the FCC's annual budget, and members of either committee have the ability to propose language in the relevant funding legislation prohibiting the FCC from using any funds for a particular purpose. The open Internet rules are sufficiently controversial that they could invite a rider of this sort. Several hearings have already been held, during which some members of Congress criticized the FCC's rules. And during those hearings, Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai called upon Congress to forbid the FCC from using any appropriated funds to implement or enforce these rules. Again, it is not clear whether any such rider would be subject to a presidential veto, although that could turn on whether the FCC's funding authorization is part of a broader budget bill.

More generally, Congress can use its oversight authority to scrutinize and potentially influence the FCC's implementation and enforcement of the rules. Indeed, the process leading to the order has been the subject of heavy criticism. Several oversight hearings on process have already occurred, including one focused entirely on the FCC's open Internet rules. While such hearings are unlikely to have a direct policy effect, they could pressure the FCC to tailor its approach. In short, while it still appears that the courts will be the first to act, there will remain plenty of churn on Capitol Hill.

The FCC's Enforcement Bureau

Finally, as the courts and Congress duel over who will decide the fate of the FCC's rules, broadband providers must comply with them. Absent a stay, most of the FCC's rules will become effective on June 12; the enhanced disclosure requirements are subject to a longer approval process that likely will not conclude until later this year.

The FCC has made clear its intent to focus on aggressive enforcement. The last year has featured higher monetary penalties, more aggressive consent decrees entered into to settle alleged violations, and broader and more burdensome investigations in advance of notices of apparent liability (by which the FCC formally alleges violations).

Moreover, there is substantial uncertainty regarding the application and scope of some of the open Internet rules, much of it resulting from the order itself. To take one of the more notorious examples, the FCC has only identified illustrative but non-exhaustive criteria for how practices will be assessed under the Internet conduct standard, and even Chairman Wheeler confessed that "[w]e don't really know" how that rule will be applied.5 In addition, the order itself states that it is not "exhaustively determining provision-by-provision and regulation-by-regulation whether and how particular provisions and rules apply to this service," leaving ISPs with some uncertainty regarding their new obligations. And many of the order's statements about particular rules that do or do not apply include an "at this time" caveat, suggesting future flux regarding the nature of ISPs' obligations. Hanging over such questions is the statement by the Chief of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau in a recent interview that, "when you're in enforcement, you're almost always working in a gray area."6 These gray areas will be explored on an ad hoc basis as the FCC either initiates investigations or adjudicates complaints by outside parties, or perhaps through the reconsideration process. While the FCC will let ISPs seek "advisory" opinions about compliance issues, that guidance is expressly nonbinding and thus offers cold comfort to entities that will now be regulated as common carriers, many for the first time in any capacity.

* * *

In short, as the enforcement window opens on June 12, the courts and Congress are actively working to review and assess a path forward to ensure an open Internet. The enforcement process will be critical, however, because it is likely to supply much of the substance of the FCC's rules and will signal just how aggressive the agency plans to be in implementing them—a factor that could further influence the pace and tone of the judicial and legislative proceedings noted above. Whether it's from the courts or Congress or a new FCC in 2017, we likely have not heard that last word on the regulatory treatment of broadband and the rules of the road for an open Internet.

[NOTE: Following the initial publication of this article, the D.C. Circuit denied the request that it stay the FCC's order but granted the request to expedite the appeal. In addition, Congress did not enact a joint resolution disapproving the FCC's order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act before the June 12 deadline for doing so.]


1. Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

2. Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

3. Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005).

4. Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, GN Docket No. 14-28, FCC 15-24 (rel. Mar. 12, 2015).

5. L. Gordon Crovitz, "Obamanet's Regulatory Farrago," Wall St. J., Mar. 15, 2015, available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/gordon-crovits-obamanets-regulatory-farrago-1426457509.

6. Brendan Sasso, "The FCC's $365 Million Man," Nat'l Journal, Apr. 26, 2015, available at http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/the-fcc-s-365-million-dollar-man-20150426.

Originally written for Telecom Law360.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions