Net neutrality ruling: How Verizon decision affects consumers

A court ruling in the case brought by Verizon against the FCC, has significant implications for the future of Internet access. But while the 2-1 ruling may seem like a death knell for the open Internet, there's still hope that net neutrality can live on.

Peter Morgan/AP/File
A Verizon sign is shown at New Meadowlands Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. On Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2014 a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed that the FCC had authority to create open-access rules. But in a setback for the Obama administration's goal of net neutrality, the court ruled that the FCC failed to establish that its 2010 regulations don't overreach.

On Tuesday, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck a possibly fatal blow to the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules. The case, brought by Verizon against the FCC, has significant implications for the future of Internet access. But while the 2-1 ruling may seem like a death knell for the open Internet, there's still hope that net neutrality can live on.

A Grave Situation for Consumers

Net neutrality isn't just a popular buzzword; it's the guiding concept behind a set of rules adopted by the FCC in 2010. The Open Internet rules are intended to promote Internet service provider transparency, and prevent ISPs from blocking or unreasonably discriminating against lawful online content. However, the appeals court ruled that the FCC doesn't have the authority to dictate how ISPs grant access to content, though the agency retained its ability to regulate broadband providers on more general terms.

The trouble for consumers is that this ruling leaves room for provider abuses. Without regulation from the FCC, broadband providers could "either block competing internet services on their landline networks, or charge those companies extra for features like guaranteed delivery or higher performance," according to Engadget. For example, an ISP like Comcast could feasibly ask a website like DealNews to pay a fee to guarantee Comcast customers access to the site. If our site chose to pay, then another ISP like Verizon could block its users' access to this article because our site was working with a competitor. And because many ISPs have a monopoly over the broadband in their service areas, consumers will just have to deal with throttled speeds and blocked sites — or give up their Internet access.

Net Neutrality Limps On (for Now)

All is not yet lost for net neutrality. Tuesday's ruling is likely to be appealed, if not by the FCC, then by consumer advocacy groups. Another option would be for Congress to pass a law giving the FCC more power to regulate broadband, but that seems unlikely in the current political climate. According to Slate, the best option would be for the FCC to rewrite its rules, so it can stop classifying the Internet services provided by cable and phone companies as "information services" (which it does not have the authority to regulate), and instead treat them as "telecommunications services" (which the FCC does have authority over).

For what it's worth, in its response to the court's decision, Verizon offered its assurance that customers wouldn't see interruptions in their Internet access: "Verizon has been and remains committed to the open Internet that provides consumers with competitive choices and unblocked access to lawful websites and content when, where, and how they want." Verizon echoed the sentiments of other Internet providers and net neutrality opponents when it hailed the decision, saying it will foster innovation in the marketplace and give customers more choices.

Despite Verizon's rosy words, the reality is that for the time being we are at the mercy of our ISPs. The good news is that the public outrage generated by this decision is likely to spur the FCC to action in quickly repairing the damage to its net neutrality rules.

Readers, how do you feel about the ruling? Will you be closely monitoring your ISP for abuses in the coming months, or do you think this whole net neutrality thing has been blown out of proportion? Give us your take in the comments below!

Marcy Bonebright is a features writer for, where this article first appeared:

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to