DC court of appeals rules against net neutrality

A federal court of appeals has ruled today that the FCC does not have the authority to enforce net neutrality, a policy that would forbid ISPs from giving preferential treatment to select forms of Internet traffic.

“. . .The Commission has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary authority over Comcast’s Internet service to any ‘statutorily mandated responsibility’,” the three-judge panel said in closing.

The ruling, handed down by the US District Court for the District of Columbia, is a victory for Comcast, which took the federal bureau to court charging that it did not have the authority to enforce net neutrality policies.

The decision is a setback for the vision of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who has steered the commission to oppose the efforts of telcos and ISPs to deliberately impede the speed or efficacy of web protocols such as BitTorrent. The commission has also opposed the notion of fee-based bandwidth tiering for downstream content providers, which would override the consumer’s paid bandwidth.

Finally, the ruling may ultimately impact the FCC’s National Broadband Plan. Released last month, the NBP outlines six objectives the FCC will pursue over the next five to ten years to improve the speed, accessibility and usefulness of broadband connections. As the plan depends on the FCC’s authority to establish and enforce telecom policy, however, a decision that rejects such authority impedes the effort.

Update: April 6, 2010, 1:01 PM EDT

The FCC has responded to the ruling with a short statement expressing continued commitment to bring net neutrality policies to bear.

“The FCC is firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans,” the commission said. “It will rest these policies — all of which will be designed to foster innovation and investment while protecting and empowering consumers — on a solid legal foundation.”

“Today’s court decision invalidated the prior Commission’s approach to preserving an open Internet. But the Court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.”