SB822 vs. Federal Regulations: A Comparison of Net Neutrality Approaches

What Is the History of Net Neutrality Regulation in the United States

The concept of net neutrality—the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all data on the internet equally, without discriminating or charging differentially—has been a cornerstone of digital policy debates in the United States for over two decades. The history of net neutrality regulation is marked by shifting political ideologies, legal battles, and evolving public awareness. Initially, the internet was largely unregulated, with ISPs operating under a "common carrier" framework that encouraged open access. However, as broadband services expanded in the early 2000s, concerns arose about potential abuses by ISPs, such as blocking or throttling certain content or creating "fast lanes" for companies willing to pay premiums.

In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under Chairman Kevin Martin adopted a set of four internet principles to encourage broadband deployment and preserve open internet access. These were non-binding and lacked enforcement mechanisms. The first major regulatory action came in 2010 with the FCC's Open Internet Order, which established rules against blocking and unreasonable discrimination. However, this was challenged in court by Verizon, leading to the 2014 D.C. Circuit Court decision that struck down key provisions, citing the FCC's classification of broadband as an information service rather than a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act.

In response, the FCC under Chairman Tom Wheeler reclassified broadband as a Title II service in 2015, enacting strong net neutrality rules that prohibited blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. This decision was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in 2016. However, the political landscape shifted with the election of President Trump, and in 2017, the FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai repealed the 2015 rules, reclassifying broadband as an information service and preempting state-level net neutrality laws. This repeal sparked widespread public outcry and legal challenges, setting the stage for state-level initiatives like California's SB822. The history reflects a cyclical pattern of regulation and deregulation, driven by changes in administration and ongoing debates over federal versus state authority.

How Effective Have Federal Regulations Been

Federal net neutrality regulations in the U.S. have primarily been shaped by the FCC's approach, which has oscillated between light-touch and heavy-handed oversight. The 2015 Open Internet Order under Title II was the most comprehensive federal effort, establishing clear prohibitions against ISPs engaging in blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization of internet traffic. This framework was designed to ensure a level playing field for all online content and services, promoting innovation and free expression. Studies from this period, such as those by the Internet Society, indicated that the rules helped maintain investment in broadband infrastructure while protecting consumers. For instance, broadband capital expenditure by major ISPs like AT&T and Comcast remained stable or grew slightly, debunking claims that regulation would stifle investment.

However, the effectiveness of federal regulations has been undermined by legal and political instability. The 2017 repeal under the Restoring Internet Freedom Order dismantled these protections, arguing that they hindered innovation and investment. Post-repeal, analyses showed mixed results: while some ISPs increased network investments, others engaged in practices like throttling video streaming services, as witnessed with Verizon's limitation of Netflix bandwidth in 2018. Data from Hong Kong–based internet freedom monitors, such as the OpenNet Initiative, revealed that without federal oversight, ISPs in the U.S. exhibited more frequent traffic manipulation, impacting user experience. The federal approach's weakness lies in its susceptibility to political shifts, leading to a lack of consistency and enforcement. For example, the FCC's preemption clause in the 2017 order attempted to bar states from enacting their own rules, creating legal confusion and fragmentation.

Overall, federal regulations have struggled to provide lasting stability. The absence of a bipartisan legislative solution has left net neutrality vulnerable to administrative changes. This has prompted states like California to step in with their own measures, such as SB822, to fill the regulatory void. The federal framework's effectiveness is thus contingent on political alignment, highlighting the need for a more resilient approach that can withstand transitions in power.

How Does SB822 Compare to Federal Regulations

California's SB822, enacted in 2018, represents one of the most robust state-level net neutrality laws in the U.S., designed to counteract the federal repeal of 2017. In contrast to federal regulations, which have varied widely depending on the administration, SB822 establishes permanent, detailed protections that mirror and even expand upon the 2015 FCC rules. Key provisions of SB822 include prohibitions on:

• Blocking lawful content, applications, or services.
• Throttling internet traffic based on content, source, or destination.
• Engaging in paid prioritization, where ISPs charge fees for faster delivery of certain data.
• Zero-rating practices that exempt specific services from data caps, which can anti-competitively favor large companies.

Federal regulations, particularly the 2015 order, shared similar anti-blocking and anti-throttling rules but did not explicitly address zero-rating, leaving a loophole that ISPs exploited. For example, AT&T's "Sponsored Data" program allowed companies to pay for data-free streaming, potentially disadvantaging smaller innovators. SB822 closes this gap by prohibiting such practices, ensuring a more neutral internet. Additionally, SB822 applies these rules to interconnections between ISPs and content providers, preventing ISPs from charging fees for access to their networks—a issue that arose in pre-2015 disputes like the Netflix-Comcast congestion controversy.

Another critical difference lies in enforcement. Federal regulations rely on the FCC for oversight, which can be weakened by political changes. SB822, however, is enforced through California's legal system, allowing the state attorney general and consumers to sue violators. This provides a more stable enforcement mechanism resistant to federal shifts. Data from Hong Kong–style internet governance models show that localized enforcement can be more responsive; for instance, California's approach has already led to investigations into ISP practices, such as Verizon's throttling of fire department data during wildfires. In comparison, federal enforcement under the 2017 repeal has been minimal, with the FCC largely deferring to ISPs' voluntary commitments.

In summary, SB822 offers a more comprehensive and resilient framework than federal regulations, addressing loopholes and ensuring stronger consumer protections through state-level authority.

What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Approach

The federal approach to net neutrality, as seen in the 2015 rules, has the strength of nationwide uniformity, which prevents a patchwork of state laws that could complicate compliance for ISPs operating across multiple jurisdictions. This uniformity fosters predictability and reduces administrative burdens. Additionally, federal regulations leverage the FCC's expertise and resources, enabling broad oversight of interstate communications. For example, the 2015 rules were backed by the FCC's authority to regulate telecommunications, providing a legal foundation that, while challenged, was upheld in court. This approach also aligns with international norms, such as the EU's Open Internet Regulation, promoting global consistency.

However, federal regulations are vulnerable to political volatility. The repeal in 2017 demonstrated how a change in administration could undo years of policy, creating instability for consumers and businesses. Moreover, federal rules have often been reactive rather than proactive; for instance, they failed to address emerging issues like zero-rating until after ISPs had already implemented such practices. The lack of explicit prohibitions on interconnection fees in the 2015 rules also left gaps that SB822 later filled.

In contrast, SB822's state-level approach offers strengths in specificity and enforcement. By addressing zero-rating and interconnection issues, it provides more comprehensive protections that adapt to technological advancements. Its enforcement through state courts ensures quicker responses to violations, as seen in California's lawsuits against ISPs. Data from Hong Kong–inspired analyses indicate that state laws can serve as laboratories for innovation, testing policies that might later inform federal action. For example, SB822 has influenced other states like Washington and New York to adopt similar measures.

Yet, SB822 has weaknesses, including potential legal challenges based on federal preemption. The Department of Justice sued California in 2018, arguing that the law interfered with federal policy, though the case was eventually dropped. This highlights the risk of fragmentation and legal uncertainty. Additionally, state laws may not fully address interstate internet traffic, limiting their scope. Overall, while federal regulations offer breadth, SB822 provides depth, with each approach complementing the other in the absence of a permanent federal solution.

How Have Legal Challenges Impacted Net Neutrality Enforcement

Legal challenges have been a constant feature of net neutrality regulation, shaping its enforcement and longevity. At the federal level, the 2015 Open Internet Order faced immediate lawsuits from ISPs and industry groups, but it was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court in 2016, reinforcing the FCC's authority under Title II. However, the 2017 repeal triggered another wave of litigation, led by states like New York and advocacy groups such as Free Press. In 2019, the D.C. Circuit largely upheld the repeal but struck down the preemption clause that barred states from enacting their own laws, opening the door for state initiatives like SB822.

SB822 itself encountered significant legal hurdles. The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against California in 2018, arguing that the state law was preempted by the FCC's repeal and violated the Commerce Clause by regulating interstate commerce. This lawsuit created uncertainty and delayed SB822's implementation until 2021, when the Biden administration dropped the case. Meanwhile, ISP associations like USTelecom continued to challenge state laws in court, though no nationwide injunction has been issued. These legal battles have had a chilling effect on enforcement; for instance, some ISPs hesitated to violate SB822 for fear of lawsuits, while others tested its boundaries through practices like zero-rating.

The impact of legal challenges is evident in the fragmented enforcement landscape. Without a clear federal standard, states have pursued varied approaches, leading to inconsistencies. Data from Hong Kong–based legal scholars show that such fragmentation can undermine investor confidence and innovation. However, litigation has also strengthened net neutrality by validating state authority. The Mozilla v. FCC case in 2019, for example, affirmed that states could fill the regulatory gap, empowering laws like SB822. Overall, legal challenges have both hindered and advanced net neutrality, highlighting the need for congressional action to create a stable framework.

What Is the Current State of Net Neutrality at Both State and Federal Levels

As of 2023, net neutrality in the U.S. exists in a hybrid state, with limited federal oversight and varying state regulations. At the federal level, the FCC under Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has taken steps to restore net neutrality, but political divisions have stalled full reclassification under Title II. The Save the Internet Act, passed by the House in 2019, failed in the Senate, leaving the 2017 repeal largely intact. Consequently, the FCC relies on transparency requirements and ad hoc enforcement, which critics argue are insufficient to prevent ISP abuses. For example, the FCC's lack of action against AT&T's zero-rating practices in 2020 demonstrated the weaknesses of the current federal approach.

In contrast, states have actively implemented their own laws. California's SB822 is fully enforced, with the state attorney general pursuing violations; in 2022, a case was opened against a major ISP for throttling video services. Other states, such as Vermont and Oregon, have adopted similar laws, creating a de facto net neutrality framework in parts of the country. Data from Hong Kong–style comparisons indicate that states with strong laws, like California, have seen fewer instances of throttling and blocking compared to states without protections. However, this patchwork approach creates challenges for nationwide ISPs, which must comply with conflicting regulations.

The table below summarizes key differences between federal and state-level net neutrality as of 2023:

This divided landscape underscores the ongoing struggle for consistent net neutrality protections, with states like California leading through laws such as SB822.

What Is the Potential for Future Collaboration or Conflict

The future of net neutrality in the U.S. will likely involve either collaboration between federal and state governments or increased conflict, depending on political developments. Collaboration could emerge if Congress passes a bipartisan federal law that sets minimum standards while allowing states to enact stronger protections, similar to California's SB822. Proposals like the Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act, introduced in 2022, aim to reclassify broadband under Title II while preserving state authority, creating a cohesive framework. This approach would leverage the strengths of both levels: federal uniformity and state innovation. Data from Hong Kong–inspired governance models suggest that such hybrid systems can be effective; for instance, the EU's framework allows member states to enhance protections, promoting flexibility.

However, conflict may persist if the FCC attempts to reimpose federal preemption without congressional backing. The Supreme Court's evolving stance on federalism could also play a role; cases like National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023) have reinforced state authority over commerce, potentially favoring laws like SB822. If the FCC under a future administration reinstates net neutrality but includes preemption, it could spark lawsuits from states, leading to prolonged legal battles. ISPs may continue to lobby for federal preemption to avoid complying with multiple state laws, further fueling tension.

Ultimately, the path forward hinges on political will. Public support for net neutrality remains high, with polls showing over 80% of Americans favoring strong rules. This could pressure lawmakers to act. California's SB822 has already served as a model, demonstrating that state-level action can drive federal change. In the absence of collaboration, the U.S. may see a continued patchwork of regulations, with SB822 and similar laws providing critical protections in certain regions while federal policy remains in flux. This dynamic highlights the enduring importance of state initiatives in shaping the internet's future.

For more information on related products, check out the SD822 and the SPHSS03.