Net Neutrality: Internet Service Providers Join Trial of Justice Department in California

Internet service providers have filed lawsuits against the state of California to prevent the new Internet neutrality law from coming into force, giving a new impetus to a high-stakes legal battle for the Internet. future of the Internet.

The complaint, filed Wednesday in federal court, expands the legal challenge filed by the Justice Department Sunday after Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill imposing new stringent requirements on companies such as AT & T and Comcast.

A federal victory could significantly limit states' ability to regulate broadband companies within their borders, some legal experts say.

California's new rules, which come into effect on January 1, prohibit ISPs from blocking or slowing down websites. Although operators have stated that they do not want to reduce the speed of Internet traffic, the legislation goes further by prohibiting them from charging new special charges to websites or selectively exempting applications and services. preferred services of customer data caps.

Wednesday's complaint from four groups representing cable and Internet providers – USTelecom, American Cable Association, CTIA (wireless industry) and NCTA (broadband and pay-TV industries) – echoes the Department of Justice to argue that California law contradicts federal regulation and should be overturned. In June, the Federal Communications Commission officially deregulated broadband providers by removing its own rules of internet neutrality, dismaying consumer advocates.

But industry lawsuit expands attack on California law, known as SB-822, claiming it seeks to regulate ISPs beyond state borders , in violation of the Constitution.

Since Internet traffic typically bounces on servers of different states before arriving at a final destination such as your phone or PC, Internet access is considered to be state-to-state, depending on the combination. . As a result, the jurisdiction over Internet providers belongs to the federal government – not to the states.

"The SB-822 violates the" dormant "or" negative "trade clause of the US Constitution by regulating behaviors that take place entirely outside California's borders," the lawsuit states.

On Wednesday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra – in charge of state defense – criticized the "power brokers" with "an obvious financial interest in maintaining their fortress" on the Internet experience of consumers.

"California, the country's economic engine, has the right to exercise its sovereign powers under the Constitution," he said in a statement. "We will do everything in our power to protect the right of our 40 million consumers to access information by defending the Internet for free and open."

Some experts have stated that a decision on the dormant commercial clause could have broad implications.

"If this second argument is correct, it calls into question all state laws that regulate the Internet," said Jonathan Mayer, former chief technologist of the FCC's crackdown office.

This could not only jeopardize the internet neutrality laws of other states, such as Washington, but also affect the efforts of states to regulate the privacy policies of providers. Internet access and even the business practices of other industries.

Other legal analysts have stated that it is likely that the industry complaint will be merged with the Justice Ministry challenge and that the US District Court in California could issue an injunction against the law of the United States. State until several other lawsuits for net neutrality are initiated resolved.

"It's the complaints stage, so they have very little to lose by putting everything in their place," said Andrew Schwartzman, a public interest law lecturer at Georgetown University. "It closely follows the case of the Department of Justice, but they file because they have their own interests that can go further."