June 15, 2016 12:51PM # Appeals Court Approves Net Neutrality Rules By [Peter Van Doren](https://www.cato.org/people/peter-van-doren) --- SHARE The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia [upheld](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-appeals-court-ruling.html) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 so called “net neutrality” rules issues by the Federal Communications Commission [in February 2015](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html?). Two previous attempts by the FCC to regulate the internet under different sections of the Telecommunications Act were overturned by the same court [in 2010](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html) and [2014](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/technology/appeals-court-rejects-fcc-rules-on-internet-service-providers.html) reflecting the traditional policy distinction between heavily regulated traditional telephone landline service and so-called information services involving computers that were not regulated. The rule issued by the FCC in 2015 reclassified internet services as falling under the same legal regime as traditional telephone service. Yesterday’s Appeal Court decision accepts that reclassification and the legal authority that goes with it. *Regulation* has published four articles in the last two years year criticizing traditional public utility regulation of the internet. Christopher Yoo from the University of Pennsylvania [argues](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2014/7/regulation-v37n2-8.pdf) that traditional telephone regulation envisions a monopoly service and government oversight ostensibly intended to limit prices and expand service provision. But the expansion of wireless high-speed Internet has allowed multiple competitive providers to provide service to a large majority of American consumers while restraining capital costs. “[What Hath the FCC Wrought](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2015/6/regulation-v38n2-1.pdf)”, by former FCC chief economist Gerald Faulhaber, argues that service quality will suffer to the extent that internet access providers can’t charge more for streams that impose greater costs on the system. Kansas State professor Dennis Weisman [argues](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2015/6/regulation-v38n2-8.pdf) that internet regulation will likely protect competitors from competition rather than serve consumer interests just like the old telephone regulatory scheme. And Larry Downes from the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy [argues that](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2016/4/regulation-v39n1-1.pdf) the movement to re-regulate telecom is propelled by some firms’ quest for rents under new regulation, and by Federal Communications Commission attempt to regain political power and the benefits that come with it. ##### Related Tags [Regulation](https://www.cato.org/regulatory-studies), [Technology and Privacy](https://www.cato.org/technology-privacy) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).