U.S. defends FCC 's repeal of net neutrality rules

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Trump administration defended the Federal Communications Commission on the Federal Republic of Germany.

In a 167-page short filing late on Thursday, the US Department of Justice and Public Affairs, the District of Columbia, Mozilla Corp., Vimeo Inc., public interest groups and local governments.

The Justice Department said the following: "No substantial reason to second-guess the commission's decision to eliminate the rules of the agency.

The FCC voted 3-2 in December along the lines of the rules of the day.

Under the net neutrality rules, internet service providers have to treat all data fairly. Supporters of the rules of the state of the art, some of them, some of them, some of them.

The FCC also sought to pre-empt states of their own rules governing internet access.

A group of Democratic members of Congress, including Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, major cities, including New York, Boston and Chicago, back the states' challenge, while trade groups supporting the FCC action.

California's state net neutrality law in January.

The net neutrality was reported by Comcast Corp., AT & T Inc., and Verizon Communications Inc., but was opposed by Internet companies like Facebook Inc., Amazon.com Inc, and Alphabet Inc., which said it could lead to higher costs.

The U.S. Senate voted in May to reinstate the net neutrality rules, but the measure is unlikely to be approved by the House of Representatives.

The FCC in December awarded the internet services to the Americans. The new rules took effect in June but providers have made no changes.

The Justice Department said, "It would be a good idea to allow" the market to prompt broadband providers to take corrective measures. "

Supporters of net neutrality argue that in some places, consumers do not have a choice among high-speed broadband providers.

The Justice Department also argues that it may be "economically inefficient," that it should not be possible to do so, but that it should not have economic causes to do so.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will take oral arguments on the case on Feb. 1.