Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

ISPs Challenge FCC Net Neutrality Rules as "Arbitrary, Capricious, and An Abuse of Discretion"

Peter Suderman | 3.24.2015 12:06 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
via Twitter

The Federal Communications Commission's new Internet rules aren't even a month old, and they're already being challenged in court—multiple courts, to be exact. 

A consortium of major Internet service providers, through the USTelecom Association, which includes AT&T and Verizon, formally submitted a legal complaint in the District of Columbia yesterday. The complaint states that the FCC's recent order, which reclassifies broadband Internet service as a Title II telecommunications service, making it akin to a utility, is "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion…" and that it "violates federal law, including, but not limited to, the Consitution, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and FCC regulations promulgated thereunder."

Another suit was filed by a small Texas ISP in a New Orleans court. Both suits were first noted by The Washington Post.

The legal challenges were all but inevitable as soon as the FCC decided to pursue reclassification, which potentially subjects ISPs to much stricter regulatory oversight. The FCC has been nosing around the possibility of reclassification for years, and critics have been warning the entire time that if the agency went that route, a drawn out legal battle would be unavoidable. The FCC made its choice, and now a multi-year, multi-front courtroom saga awaits.

And the thing is, the FCC might lose—again. The agency's last two attempts to institute net neutrality also wound up in court, and both were eventually thrown out. It's not all clear that the agency's rules have more solid legal grounding this time.

Indeed, as Berin Szoka of TechFreedom points out, the FCC's refusal to formally issue notice of new rules late last year when Chairman Wheeler changed directions and began considering reclassification is a vulnerability. Because of that decision, the rules that the FCC voted on last month were never really debated publicly; the agency had spent a year taking public comments on a different proposal, and then altered its approach at the last minute. That alone makes it legally dicey.

Anyway, this is likely just the first salvo in the Great Telecom Legal War. According to Ars Technica, more lawsuits are expected from trade groups for cable and wireless service companies. This is an all hands on deck fight for the telecom industry, with the majority of the major players taking major steps to fight the FCC's rules.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: The Case for Cruz

Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason.

PoliticsPolicyScience & TechnologyNet NeutralityInternetTelecommunications Policy
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (33)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Pro Libertate   10 years ago

    The process of promulgating the rulemaking is almost certainly reversible, and I suspect the FCC doesn't actually have the authority to issue these rules without more direct legislative authority, even today, when agencies are legislating all of the place.

    1. crab_apple   10 years ago

      I saw a commenter in an engadget article say that "These are regulations, not laws! They are allowed to make regulations!" and I got a bleed in my brain.

      1. See Double You   10 years ago

        So if regulations aren't laws, they can be ignored, right?

        1. Swiss Servator... Switzy!   10 years ago

          *FCC SWAT team readies itself*

          1. Sudden   10 years ago

            The day after national puppy day and you're gonna trigger me with that?

            The Swiss have holes in their hearts.

  2. See Double You   10 years ago

    Good luck, ISPs. It is nearly impossible for a plaintiff to win on the "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review.

    1. Pro Libertate   10 years ago

      It is difficult when the agency doesn't go out of its way to demonstrate its improper behavior. Here, I think it's a fairly easy win on multiple grounds. None of this even passes the smell test.

    2. Swiss Servator... Switzy!   10 years ago

      The lack of comment period is going to get this stayed, I would bet $5.

      1. Pro Libertate   10 years ago

        U.S.?

        1. UnCivilServant   10 years ago

          Zimbabwe

          1. Pro Libertate   10 years ago

            Transmit the moneys to me via Proteus.

            1. UnCivilServant   10 years ago

              Speak to Switzy, I've appointed him to handle my trillions of Zimbabwe dollars.

  3. MikeP   10 years ago

    ISPs Challenge FCC Net Neutrality Rules as "Arbitrary, Capricious, and An Abuse of Discretion

    And they don't close the quotation marks because they are so much more as well!

  4. JW   10 years ago

    "Release the hounds lawyers."

  5. Grand Moff Serious Man   10 years ago

    Surely they can at least find a judge that'll issue a stay, right?

  6. PM   10 years ago

    The complaint states that the FCC's recent order... is "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion?"

    It's a little late to start repealing FCC regulations on that grounds, isn't it?

  7. Carl ?s the level   10 years ago

    The complaint states that the FCC's recent order, which reclassifies broadband Internet service as a Title II telecommunications service, making it akin to a utility, is "arbitrary, capricious

    Your fly's open.

    1. PM   10 years ago

      +1 Kramerica Industries

  8. mporcius   10 years ago

    For a week every time I opened Firefox I saw that "Victory! The FCC has saved the Internet!" message. I'm wondering what the Mozilla people will put on there if the courts toss out the FCC decision.

    1. Swiss Servator... Switzy!   10 years ago

      GREAT INJUSTICE DONE!!!!!

    2. The Grinch   10 years ago

      Did Waterfox or Pale Moon have official positions on this or were they smart enough to keep their collective mouths shut?

      1. Bones   10 years ago

        Collectives Mouth Shut

        FIFY

    3. Timon 19   10 years ago

      I love how the EFF immediately issued a "WAIT JUST A SECOND, FCC!!!!" letter upon the announcement happening.

      They still have work to redeem themselves and get my money this year.

  9. FreeToFear   10 years ago

    IANAL, just a lowly software engineer with pretensions, but if I were the lawyers for Verizon, etc. I would make a first amendment case out of this. Scenario:

    "At Verizon, we strongly feel that ISIS and other terrorist organizations are a threat to democracy and choice across the world. We were going to take a stand by refusing to re-broadcast traffic coming from IP addresses known to be affiliated with terrorism. The FCC rules, in this case, are compelling Verizon to retransmit this traffic from contemptible sources, in effect making verizon complicit in the doings of these organizations. We thus find these rules to be an unconstitutional compelling of speech by the FCC"

    Do I win?

  10. Fist of Etiquette   10 years ago

    What is the downside for agencies trying this kind of thing again and again? The worst thing that happens for them is taxpayer-funded attorneys get a payday.

  11. Mr. Flanders   10 years ago

    Comcast is of course suspiciously absent from the fight, cause, you know, they probably like the idea of a regulatory regime they can control.

    1. FreeToFear   10 years ago

      Comcast is actually legally bound by an earlier agreement to not challenge this stuff

      1. MikeP   10 years ago

        Zow. The government has gone full Mussolini.

        The goal of the internet is to make Netflix run on time. Innovation shminnovation.

      2. Mr. Flanders   10 years ago

        Really? Could you post a link to where I can read about this? I haven't heard of this before.

        1. FreeToFear   10 years ago

          I don't have a great link, but it was part of the Time Warner merger deal

  12. Paul.   10 years ago

    "Arbitrary, Capricious, and An Abuse of Discretion"

    But if we take that away from the government, what'll be left?

  13. LIBERATEDXZOMBIE   10 years ago

    I hope the FCC fails once more, but don't count on it. We are on track to unlimited governmental regulation at the federal level due to the "supreme" court rulings based on the Interstate Commerce Clause. POTUS has evisceration almost all Constitutional restriction of the Governments' intrusion into individual rights.

  14. CN_Foundation   10 years ago

    Oh please people, wake up and see this declaratory rulings have absolutely no chance of being declared invalid.
    Lets make these businesses regret trying to stand up to over four-million Americans asking for Title II.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

The EPA Is a Prime Candidate for Reform by the Trump Administration

J.D. Tuccille | 5.9.2025 7:00 AM

Review: A Doomsday Murder Mystery Set in an Underground Bunker

Jeff Luse | From the June 2025 issue

Review: A Superhero Struggle About the Ethics of Violence

Jack Nicastro | From the June 2025 issue

Brickbat: Cooking the Books

Charles Oliver | 5.9.2025 4:00 AM

The App Store Freedom Act Compromises User Privacy To Punish Big Tech

Jack Nicastro | 5.8.2025 4:57 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!