The article reads, "Reuters described the decision as "a win for private-sector providers of broadband internet and a setback for FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler."
It later continues, "A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the FCC's justification of its authority and struck down the agency's action."
I believe that the Congress needs to clarify the relevant laws to better reflect the express desires of the President and the FCC to make the market more competitive and also bring improved broadband access to Americans at an affordable price. After all, the preemption of states' rights is a serious matter, which usually does require explicit statutory authorization; else it can be subject to the very sort of prudent analysis by the appellate court in this situation.
You can find the full text of the appellate court decision here:
And also, please see the following article:
"The FCC, led by Chairman Tom Wheeler, claimed it could preempt the laws because Congress authorizes the commission to promote telecom competition by removing barriers to investment."
"The FCC order essentially serves to re-allocate decision-making power between the states and their municipalities," judges wrote. "This is shown by the fact that no federal statute or FCC regulation requires the municipalities to expand or otherwise to act in contravention of the preempted state statutory provisions. This preemption by the FCC of the allocation of power between a state and its subdivisions requires at least a clear statement in the authorizing federal legislation. The FCC relies upon Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for the authority to preempt in this case, but that statute falls far short of such a clear statement. The preemption order must accordingly be reversed."
The article continues:
Wheeler further said that the judges' ruling "appears to halt the promise of jobs, investment and opportunity that community broadband has provided in Tennessee and North Carolina." Communities that want better broadband, he said, "should not be thwarted by the political power of those who, by protecting their monopoly, have failed to deliver acceptable service at an acceptable price." The FCC had claimed that its preemption authority "falls within the measures to promote competition in the local telecommunications market' and 'other regulating methods' of section 706(a) that Congress directed the Commission to use to remove barriers to infrastructure investment."
" The FCC argued that Congress doesn't need to 'explicitly delegate' the authority to preempt state laws, but failed to persuade judges.Tennessee argued that the FCC order violated the Constitution by "infringing on the state’s right to determine the boundaries of its political subdivisions," judges noted. Tennessee and North Carolina further argued "that even if Congress has the power to authorize such orders, it has failed to provide the necessary clear statement as required by Nixon," referring to Nixon vs. Missouri Municipal League, a Supreme Court case from 2004.