Broadband industry trade groups have gone back to court, demanding an immediate halt to the Federal Communications Commission decision to reclassify Internet access as a common carrier service. The groups failed to convince the FCC itself that the order should not go into effect while it's being appealed, but will try to win a stay from a judge.

Within the petition the groups filed today is an admission that the FCC decision is already making it difficult for Internet providers to demand fees for network interconnection. Even though the rules don't take effect until June 12, the threat of complaints seemingly spurred AT&T and Verizon to settle longstanding disputes with companies that objected to paying for network upgrades that would improve service for the Internet providers' subscribers.

The petition confirms that the impending rules are already affecting those negotiations. In a section titled, "Reclassification Undermines Interconnection Negotiations," the trade groups representing Internet providers said the new rules are "already causing irreparable harm with respect to interconnection." They continued:

Until now, a variety of voluntarily negotiated, individualized arrangements have been used to exchange traffic between networks. But, under the Order, these arrangements are now part of the “telecommunications service” that broadband Internet access providers offer their retail customers, and thus broadband providers—but not their interconnecting counter-parties—are subject to the requirements of Title II. Yet again, however, the FCC did not explain what that means or how broadband providers must act. Providers are thus left to negotiate contracts subject to sweeping statutory mandates without knowing what decisions could lead to enforcement action. Already, providers face demands for significant changes to interconnection agreements. The parties making those demands are threatening to file enforcement actions if their demands are not met. This distortion in what had been a well-functioning private negotiation process is irreparable harm. The Bureaus brush aside this argument by claiming that other parties have long been seeking better deals. That is true but irrelevant. The FCC’s decision sharply tips the scales in negotiations because it creates a new, one-sided ability for those parties to bring complaints and impose costs against broadband providers.

Big Internet providers had been demanding payments from network operators such as Cogent and Level 3, which sell transit services to websites and other businesses that need to distribute Internet traffic to consumers. Cogent and Level 3 argue that they should continue exchanging traffic for free with Internet providers, while the Internet providers say Cogent and Level 3 should have to pay because they send more traffic than they receive. Cogent and Level 3 counter that they are merely sending traffic requested by the Internet providers' subscribers.

After threatening to lodge a complaint, Cogent struck a deal with Verizon and said it did not have to pay for interconnection. Level 3 signed new deals with Verizon and AT&T. All of these agreements will boost capacity at interconnection points, ending money disputes that degraded performance for websites that had to rely on congested ports.

Today's petition to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia came from the United States Telecom Association, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, CTIA–The Wireless Association, AT&T, the American Cable Association, CenturyLink, and the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association.

The providers say they don't object to the core net neutrality rules preventing blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, but want to prevent the common carrier reclassification and other provisions in the FCC's Open Internet Order—including the right for companies like Cogent and Level 3 to lodge interconnection complaints.

The FCC rejected the trade groups' claim that a stay would not harm consumers. But the providers claim they will be the ones to suffer if the rules take effect as scheduled.

"Such relief is necessary to avoid the serious and substantial harms that service providers and consumers alike will bear if the FCC is allowed to subject the modern Internet to this antiquated regulatory regime," NCTA CEO Michael Powell said in the group's announcement. "In seeking this relief, we are mindful that a stay need not upset the FCC’s net neutrality rules that prohibit Internet blocking, throttling and paid prioritization. We hope that the court will move swiftly to grant effective relief, and that Congress will soon act to provide clear authority and needed direction as to the scope of appropriate open Internet protections."

In case the court does not grant the requested stay, the petition also asks the court to expedite the case that will decide whether the rules remain in place over the long haul.