US TELECOM vs.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION open internet rules “will preserve and facilitate the ‘virtuous circle’ of
(US COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-1063 – JUNE 14, 2016) innovation that has driven the explosive growth of the Internet.”

FACTS WHO WON? FCC

1. The 2014 D.C. Circuit court decision Verizon v. FCC vacated portions of the
FCC Open Internet Order 2010 because it was determined that they could
only apply to common carriers. At the time, broadband services had
historically been classified as "information services," a decision made by the
FCC in the early 2000's and unsuccessfully challenged in court

2. In 2015, the FCC’s Open Internet Order reclassified broadband services as

"telecommunications services," giving broadband status as a "common
carrier" under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

3. Petitioner US Telecom Association now challenges the FCC's 2015 Open

Internet Order, stating that the reclassification of broadband service as a
telecommunication service subject to common carrier treatment was
improper and unreasonable.

4. The FCC claims that broadband service satisfies the statutory definition of a
telecommunications service: “the offering of telecommunications for a fee
directly to the public.”

ISSUE

WON the FCC validly reclassified broadband/internet as public utility and covered
under Title II of the Communications Act as a “common carrier”? YES.

HELD

 The US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the FCC. The Court concluded
that broadband services provide the unadulterated transmission of messages
via computer processing, in that they connect users to third party content.

 Content from edge providers like Netflix and Youtube have “transformed
nearly every aspect of our lives. As such, a broadband service provider makes
a stand-alone offering of telecommunications, and are within the definition
of a “telecommunications service” as determined by the FCC.

 As regards the rules on imposed by the FCC on broadband providers

(mentioned in the Verizon vs. FCC case), their justification for the open
internet rules was sufficient, as the Court had already decided in Verizon that