Nature of the case
The Verizon vs. Federal Communications Commission was a court of appeal case in 2014 in the D.C circuit. The case entailed vacating portions of the 2010 FCC Open Internet Order, which the court finalized that the application was valid to the common carriers. A common carrier is a company or an individual that offers transportation services for another company or individual and takes full responsibility should anything occur during the transportation.
The Federal Communication Commission compelled ☹the☹ internet service providers to take all internet traffic same ☹with little or no☹ regard of the causative agent. The treatment by the internet service providers is the net neutrality. The continuous flow of information and data over and across the internet is internet traffic. The disturbed nature of the internet due to factors such as electromagnetism, internet traffic lacks a single point of measurement. The internet volume and growth indication is through public peering points of internet traffic data. The figures of internet volume and growth do not include the remaining traffic within single and private service provider networks.
The Federal Communication Commission had completely failed to give any justifiable statutory authority to compel the internet service provider to stick to the management practices of the open network. The internet marketplace has four major participants in the relevant issue of the Verizon vs. Federal Communications Commission case. The four major players are the internet service providers, backbone networks, end users and the edge providers. The backbone networks constitute ☹of the☹ interconnected fiber-optic links and the routers with the capability of transmitting large loads of data and preferably high-speed. ☹Internet☹ users connect to the networks through the local broadband providers, which include companies like the Verizon Inc. ☹the local☹ broadband providers connect ☹the☹ internet users to the main internet service providers using high-speed connectivity technology.
The main internet service providers connect the users to the edge providers. The edge providers provide the user with the relevant content that the ☹user needs☹ like Google and Amazon. The Verizon vs. Federal Communications Commission case was between the local broadband provider and the main backbone or main broadband provider. The Federal Communication Commission was the common carrier by designation virtue. ☹The Federal Communication Commission☹ had been regulating cable companies providing broadband services. The communication made the broadband providers to provide only the single integrated service of information, an action that exempted the cable companies from the ☹regulation in Title II.☹
The issue was whether the Federal Communication Commission had the power of regulating the Internet service providers in terms of ☹the☹ network neutrality.
Holding and decision
☹No.☹ The vote ruling was 3-0-2 in favor of Verizon against the Federal Communication Commission. ☹Laurence☹ did the delivery on the majority of the opinion. Laurence stated that the ruling of the court of appeal was that the Federal Communication Commission lacked the mandate and authority to ☹impose its entirety order.☹ Consequently, the court of appeal also ruled that the Federal Communication Commission had relinquished all the regulation rights because of its classification under broadband providers. Laurence explained that the court of appeal finalized on the relinquishing rights ruling using the Communication Act of 1934.The ruling by the court of appeal served as a huge victory for the other stakeholders in the cable broadband business ☹and☹ industry as a whole. Subsequently, the case was a huge loss for the avid supporters of network neutrality. According to Laurence, two of the three orders that constitute the Federal Communication Commission internet order underwent ☹vacation while remained.☹
The Verizon vs. Federal Communications Commission case was presided over by Judge Davis Tatel, Judge Judith Ann and Judge Laurence Silberman. Judge Davis Tatel joined by Judge Judith Ann wrote the ☹opinion☹ of the case concurring. The concurrence of the case by Davis and Judith was whether the Federal Communication Commission went overboard in exercising its powers over the local broadband providers. Judge Laurence Silberman had the responsibility of writing a separate decision, which concurred and ☹dissented in part.☹ Laurence stated that the court of appeal needed to give a verdict about the Federal Communication Commission rules that governed network management ☹primarily internet neutrality.☹
Concise Rule of Law
The Federal Communication commission had the regulation authority over the broadband providers in the encouragement of broadband deployment that will cover the entire nation. The Federal Communication Commission ought to reclassify the local broadband providers like ☹Verizon Inc, as☹ telecommunications services. Consequently, the Federal Communication Commission should subject the local broadband providers to the regulations of ☹the☹ common carriers. In order for the provision and preservation of network neutrality in the United States, the Federal Communication Commission should regulate common carriers ☹laws on☹ the local broadband providers.
Analysis and Meaning
The Federal Communication Commission does not have the regulatory authority over the local broadband providers. The Open Internet Order of the Federal Communication Commission is the order that bars them from having the regulatory authority. I hold the opinion that the ruling by the court of appeal will enhance innovation amongst the local broadband providers and enhanced consumer choices as well. Three orders from the Federal Communication Commission, which were applicable to both the mobile and fixed operators of ☹the☹ internet access, came under ☹establishment of the court.☹ Transparency was one of the three orders, which required the fixed and mobile operators to disclose information regarding network management publicly. The other information fit for public disclosure was commercial term services and management performance. The second and the third order were the no blocking order and the no unreasonable discrimination order. I believe that the court of appeal was not at all harsh in its ruling in favor of the local broadband providers against the Federal Communication Commission. I believe that the public who comprise of ☹the☹ internet user stand to benefit from the internet neutrality court ☹ruling.☹