AT&T/Verizon lobbyists to “aggressively” sue states that enact net neutrality

A lobby group that represents AT&T, Verizon, and other telcos plans to sue states and cities that try to enforce net neutrality rules.

USTelecom, the lobby group, made its intentions clear yesterday in a blog post titled, "All Americans Deserve Equal Rights Online."

"Broadband providers have worked hard over the past 20 years to deploy ever more sophisticated, faster and higher-capacity networks, and uphold net neutrality protections for all," USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter wrote. "To continue this important work, there is no question we will aggressively challenge state or municipal attempts to fracture the federal regulatory structure that made all this progress possible."

The USTelecom board of directors includes AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, CenturyLink, Windstream, and other telcos. The group's membership "ranges from the nation's largest telecom companies to small rural cooperatives."

States’ rights don’t apply to net neutrality

Spalter's blog post reminisces about the founding of the United States of America, noting that the Articles of Confederation "ma[de] Congress the sole governing body of our new national government" and that the Constitution "grant[ed] the federal government jurisdiction over commerce that moves across state lines."

State regulations on net neutrality thus conflict with America's founding principles, Spalter wrote:

It is said that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.' Nowhere can we find a more perfect modern example for this sentiment than in the cacophony of disparate calls by state and local regulators across the country each seeking to impose their own brand of 'net neutrality' regulations on consumers' Internet experience.

The US should have one net neutrality standard instead of different rules in each state and city, Spalter also wrote. Spalter reiterated the broadband industry's argument that websites should be as heavily regulated as Internet providers, even though net neutrality rules have generally been designed to prevent ISPs from discriminating against online services:

Protections should be no different for consumers in Minnesota or Iowa than they are in California or Florida. Equally true, consumers deserve consistent safeguards across the online world, whether engaging with Facebook, Goggle [sic], AT&T or Comcast.

Of course, the US did have a nationwide net neutrality standard that prohibited ISPs from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing Internet content in exchange for payment. But that standard was bitterly opposed by USTelecom and other broadband industry groups.

USTelecom previously sued the Federal Communications Commission to overturn those net neutrality rules and lost in court. However, USTelecom eventually got its way after Republican Ajit Pai was appointed FCC chairman by President Trump; Pai led a 3-2 vote to kill the rules.

Pai's FCC also claimed the authority to preempt state and municipal net neutrality rules at the urging of Verizon and other ISPs.

But Washington state and Oregon are imposing net neutrality laws, saying the FCC lacks authority to preempt them. There is pending net neutrality legislation in more than half of US states, and the governors of five states have issued executive orders designed to protect net neutrality.

Spalter complained that the net neutrality debate has gone on too long. "No one will get the years of time back that’s been spent on a 'net neutrality' debate long on circular, heated rhetoric and painfully short on honest, constructive dialogue," he wrote.

But the net neutrality debate might have ended years ago if USTelecom and other broadband industry groups hadn't opposed the federal standard. State lawmakers only decided to enforce net neutrality at the local level after ISPs convinced the FCC to abandon its nationwide oversight of net neutrality.