Our vulture listened to four hours of obtuse net neutrality legal blah-blah so you don't have to: Here's what's happening

Appeals court hears arguments over whether watchdog was right to tear up protections

Analysis A year after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was sued for scrapping America's net neutrality rules, the issue finally ended up in court on Friday.

The hearing, held in Washington DC, went on for hours. In fact, it went on for so long that one judge jokingly asked one of the lawyers whether he had brought some pizza with him. It was not easy going: the hearing was so intensely focused on specific legal definitions and precedents that parts of it were virtually incomprehensible.

If you hear the word "Chevron" and think of a gas station rather than a landmark ruling about how much leeway US government agencies should be given in law, then this appeals court hearing was not for you.

Unfolding at a snail's pace was the legal challenge brought against the FCC by Mozilla, Vimeo, Public Knowledge, Open Technology Institute, Etsy, Center for Democracy and Technology, and Incompas – plus 22 states that signed onto the appeal, including New York, California, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. They seek to overturn the regulator's decision to scrap net neutrality protections in the US.

On the FCC's side are the cable industry's trade associations: USTelecom, CTIA, NCTA, American Cable Association, and Wireless Internet Service Providers Association.

Despite the hours of argument, however, the net neutrality issue has become so complex and convoluted that it was still not possible to dig into all the relevant issues. This is what happens when the rules over critical infrastructure – the internet – are built on laws written before the technology existed in any meaningful way.

The old net neutrality rules that banned ISPs from touching the content that flows over their networks were developed from the Communications Act of 1934. The current rules are developed on one paragraph in a law from the Telecommunications Act of 1996: a paragraph that went out of its way to note that no one had any idea what direction this internet thing was going.

The fact that there isn't a law that reflects the reality of the internet has created a tortuous process where a service that we all use every day is jammed into legal pigeonholes that don't make much sense. It's as if a set of judges in 1890 were asked to adjudicate in a dispute between railroads and automobiles and someone flew a Boeing 747 over the courthouse.

All this was made clear when one of the judges started digging into what has become an increasingly false distinction between an "information service" and "telecommunications." Because of having to rely on existing law, the internet has to be one rather than the other. And in order to make the current FCC rules legitimate, your phone line has to be the other one.


Which led to a bizarre discussion between the court and the FCC's lawyer in which one judge repeatedly pointed out how the telephone system does more than just relay information, and the FCC argued that the domain name system (DNS) adds "capability" to the internet, even though it is just a look-up service and doesn't really add any "capabilities" at all.

Advocates on both sides have been put into the ludicrous position where they are forced to argue points that don't really add up in order to bolster their main case.

Even the precedents used to put the discussion on some kind of solid legal footing reflect the fact that we don't have a good legal description of the internet. The "Chevron" mentioned earlier was a Supreme Court ruling back in 1984 that basically said if an issue was ambiguous then the courts should defer to a government's agency's interpretation of what it means.

A man shrugs at a laptop with a background of question marks

Net neutrality is heading to the courts (again): So will the current rules stand or be overturned (again)?


Great. And so when the previous net neutrality rules were challenged over whether internet provision was an "information service" or a "telecommunications service", the FCC argued that its interpretation had to be followed. And the court looked at the Chevron precedent and agreed.

Three years later and the FCC did a complete 180. It decided that what was true before is now false, and what was false is now true. The telecommunication service is now an information service. And it argues that the Chevron precedent means that its reverse-image interpretation now also holds and has to be respected by the courts.

The other legal precedent in this space is "Brand X" which builds on top of the Chevron decision. In 2005, the Supreme Court decided that the FCC was entitled to decide the ambiguity over what an internet service is – again, information or telecommunications – thanks to Chevron.

The question of course is: does an out-of-date law represent a solid legal foundation or a toppling tower? Logically, it is an inherently unstable situation when the exact same law enables the exact same regulator to decide the exact same issue but in the complete opposite direction within just three years.

But should the court let the precedent hold or should it intervene and fix a flip-flop problem that hadn't been adequately foreseen?

Shoddy job

And that's where yet another aspect of the legal battle comes in: did the FCC do its job properly? Or, in legal terms, did it follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which is designed to make sure that policymaking by the US government sticks to some basic principles and doesn't become driven by ideology.

It's hard for even supporters of the FCC reversal to argue that the process was a good example of government policymaking. FCC chair Ajit Pai gave a series of speeches in which he actively mocked and disparaged anyone whose views didn't align with his. And then there was the issue of the FCC actively ignoring literally millions of comments from US citizens opposed to the move.

Objectively, the FCC did not run a decent, fair or even proper policy process in arriving at its decision. But of course in a court of law that has to be proven and it is far less clear under the APA whether a case can be made to reverse the FCC's decision just because people didn’t like how it did it.

There's more.

A difficult truth at the heart of the net neutrality debate is that the Obama-era net neutrality rules were a fudge. A pragmatic fudge, but a fudge nonetheless. What they had in their favor was that,thanks to ten years of legal argument, over the topic they were grounded on solid legal ground.

The new FCC rules which scrapped those rules and then attempted to burn everything else around them was a far more scrappy affair. The current FCC under chair Ajit Pai is notable for three things: impatience, myopia and a clever-clever attitude where big changes are made through small, mostly obscure policy details.

If anything came out of the hearing it was that the FCC decided on its course – to free broadband providers of any constraints – and then bent and twisted everything in its way to get there. That blinkered approach may be the rules undoing however.

Next page: Transparent

Similar topics

Other stories you might like

  • Stolen university credentials up for sale by Russian crooks, FBI warns
    Forget dark-web souks, thousands of these are already being traded on public bazaars

    Russian crooks are selling network credentials and virtual private network access for a "multitude" of US universities and colleges on criminal marketplaces, according to the FBI.

    According to a warning issued on Thursday, these stolen credentials sell for thousands of dollars on both dark web and public internet forums, and could lead to subsequent cyberattacks against individual employees or the schools themselves.

    "The exposure of usernames and passwords can lead to brute force credential stuffing computer network attacks, whereby attackers attempt logins across various internet sites or exploit them for subsequent cyber attacks as criminal actors take advantage of users recycling the same credentials across multiple accounts, internet sites, and services," the Feds' alert [PDF] said.

    Continue reading
  • Big Tech loves talking up privacy – while trying to kill privacy legislation
    Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail data rules

    Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft often support privacy in public statements, but behind the scenes they've been working through some common organizations to weaken or kill privacy legislation in US states.

    That's according to a report this week from news non-profit The Markup, which said the corporations hire lobbyists from the same few groups and law firms to defang or drown state privacy bills.

    The report examined 31 states when state legislatures were considering privacy legislation and identified 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms working on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, along with industry groups like TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition.

    Continue reading
  • SEC probes Musk for not properly disclosing Twitter stake
    Meanwhile, social network's board rejects resignation of one its directors

    America's financial watchdog is investigating whether Elon Musk adequately disclosed his purchase of Twitter shares last month, just as his bid to take over the social media company hangs in the balance. 

    A letter [PDF] from the SEC addressed to the tech billionaire said he "[did] not appear" to have filed the proper form detailing his 9.2 percent stake in Twitter "required 10 days from the date of acquisition," and asked him to provide more information. Musk's shares made him one of Twitter's largest shareholders. The letter is dated April 4, and was shared this week by the regulator.

    Musk quickly moved to try and buy the whole company outright in a deal initially worth over $44 billion. Musk sold a chunk of his shares in Tesla worth $8.4 billion and bagged another $7.14 billion from investors to help finance the $21 billion he promised to put forward for the deal. The remaining $25.5 billion bill was secured via debt financing by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, and others. But the takeover is not going smoothly.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022