The Us Supreme Court has rejected an appeal to net neutrality, a major setback for the Trump administration’s deregulation policy?

But, no. The domestic media that reported the news in this way clearly did not read English carefully, let alone understand what the Supreme Court had ruled.

As it is, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from USTelecom and Century Link, an industry group for Internet access services, against a 2016 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling that upheld the FCC’s net neutrality doctrine.

The longer the sentence, the harder it looks. What the hell does that mean? Let’s start with net neutrality.

In February 2015, under the Obama administration, the Democratic-dominated FEDERAL Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the regulatory principle of “net neutrality,” which treats mobile operators and broadband providers as utilities like phone service, It is regulated by the 80-year-old Federal Communication Act of 1934. Under this principle, Internet access providers must treat all traffic on the Internet equally and not discriminate between particular Internet services (no extra charges, no fast lanes).

For example, mobile operators and broadband providers are like bridge builders, building Internet superhighways, and Internet companies are like cars, buses, lorries and even heavy-duty trucks (YouTube or Netflix) running on them. But under net neutrality, companies that build Bridges and roads cannot charge large or heavy trucks extra tolls to cross the bridge, or create a toll lane for fast traffic.

As obvious as this regulatory principle was hailed by Internet companies such as Google, Mozilla and Netflix, it was immediately protested and appealed by internet-access giants such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast. The establishment of this principle means that they can only act as conduits and cannot generate more revenue from the Internet access services they provide. Under net neutrality, for example, broadband service Comcast cannot charge bandwidth hogs like Netflix or choose to speed up or slow down a particular service.

In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected an appeal by Internet access providers and industry associations, confirming that the FEDERAL Communications Commission (FCC) has the right to apply the same regulations to broadband providers as telephone providers, treating Internet service as a public utility. Thus establishing the principles of net neutrality adopted by the FCC the year before.

The ruling represents a major victory for Obama’s Democratic administration and the Internet service companies he supports. Of course, the isp appealed again, taking the case to the Supreme Court. That’s the specific case the Supreme Court declined to hear today.

However, the political situation changed, the situation changed. With trump’s surprise election victory in 2017, the FCC was reshuffled and deregulatory Republicans returned to the majority, improving the fortunes of mobile carriers and broadband providers.

Ajit Pai, the new chairman of the FEDERAL Communications Commission, has publicly argued that 80-year-old regulations on Internet access providers have stunted their incentive to innovate and invest heavily in mobile networks and broadband services. Pai previously voted against net neutrality in 2015, when Democrats held the majority.

In December 2017, the Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission also voted 3 to 2 to repeal net neutrality. Now it is mobile operators and broadband providers who are cheering, but Internet firms that are grumbling, meaning they may have to pay extra in exchange for better speeds for their Internet services. Then there are the Democrats who have stood behind them all along, the anti-Trump mainstream media and the liberal public. They raise the issue to the level of first Amendment freedom of speech, arguing that abolishing net neutrality gives ISPs the right to censor and block Internet content.

But it’s worth noting that net neutrality wasn’t even one of the issues Democrats and liberals used to attack Republicans and Trump’s policies during the US midterm elections. In fact, what this issue really involves is the distribution of benefits between operators and Internet companies, rather than the actual experience of ordinary netizens.

Interestingly, net neutrality is just one of the things that Trump has done consistently, tirelessly, and consistently since taking office to dismantle his predecessor Barack Obama’s policies. Now out of office, campaigning for the midterm elections, The President energetically attended Democratic rallies where he lashed out at Trump’s policies and personal integrity. Rarely in American history has a former and current president lashed out at each other as lying liars. But… People who eat melons think they look good.

If the Trump administration has already struck down net neutrality, why go to the Supreme Court? Because the United States is a common law country, the precedents of previous decisions are important for similar cases to follow. So the Trump administration is hoping that the Supreme Court will take up the case and overturn the 2016 appeals court ruling so that similar cases cannot be used as precedents in the future.

So why did the Supreme Court refuse to hear the case? In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States only hears about 1 percent of the cases it hears each year, and the vast majority of cases are rejections. The justices have a free veto over whether to hear an appeal. Four justices must agree to hear a case on the nine-member court.

In the case, three conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — said, Given that the FCC had already repealed net neutrality, they agreed to take up the case, overturning a 2016 appeals court ruling.

But two conservative justices, John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, recused themselves. Mr Kavanaugh is from the federal appeals court in Washington, DC, where the case is concerned, while Mr Roberts has a conflict of interest because of his stake in Time Warner, which AT&T bought. All four liberal justices dissented. That means only three justices agreed to hear the appeal, which fell short of the admissibility threshold.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has sidestepped a sensitive issue. In February, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s appeal to end the Obama administration’s program for illegal immigrant children, or DACA, because it did not meet due process. Again, this does not represent the Supreme Court’s opinion on the case, but because it does not conform to the normal appeals process. In April, the Supreme Court also refused to get involved in the illegal immigration issue by refusing to hear appeals from 61 illegal Immigrants from Central America (this time really women and children whose asylum claims had previously been denied).

What is at the heart of the appeal? Not net neutrality per se, but whether the FCC has the authority to pass such a regulatory principle. By refusing to hear the appeal now, the Supreme Court acquiesces to the FCC’s full regulatory authority.

In other words, the FCC has the power to establish or repeal net neutrality. In other words, a democratic-dominated FEDERAL Communications Commission could reassert net neutrality under a future Democratic administration.

Liberals who support net neutrality can argue that the liberal justice’s refusal to hear the case leaves open the possibility that net neutrality could be re-established in the future. On the other hand, the Supreme Court did not establish net neutrality, but chose to stay out of it.

“While we believe the Supreme Court should take due course to overturn the 2016 federal Appeals Court ruling in Washington, D.C., this decision also recognizes the FCC’s authority to treat Internet broadband as an information service,” AJit Pai, the FCC’s chairman, said in a statement. So we believe this amounts to supporting the Committee’s Restoring Internet Freedom Act of 2017.”

USTelecom, the broadband service providers’ trade association and a plaintiff in the case, said, “The court’s refusal to hear the case is not surprising, since the FCC struck down net neutrality last year.”

Interestingly, the name of last year’s repeal of net neutrality was the Restore Online Freedom Act, which was attacked on the one hand by Internet companies, liberals and Democrats as stifling online freedom; On the other hand, it has been praised by Internet operators for unbundling them and helping to give people better, faster and cheaper Internet service. Different interests, different words.

The fight over net neutrality is not limited to this case. In the wake of the Trump administration’s repeal of net neutrality, democratic-dominated state governments have announced laws to re-establish the principle, including four deep blue states: California, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. California became the first state to sign a law establishing net neutrality last month. The same day the governor signed it, however, the Justice Department sued. The two sides have now reached a settlement in which the state of California has agreed to put its net neutrality law on hold.

Net neutrality, need to take sides?