When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced its plan to reinstate Net Neutrality rules in April, many were surprised. The 2017 repeal of net neutrality had little to no effect on the everyday experience of internet users—if anything, internet speeds and accessibility in 2024 are better than ever. Why take up a cumbersome legal battle to impose previously overturned restrictions on an industry that has historically flourished when allowed to compete and innovate without excessive regulation?

Last week, the legal battle proved to be not just cumbersome, but unsuccessful, when a Sixth Circuit court blocked the FCC from moving forward with its regime of red tape by placing a temporary stay.

If net neutrality had been reinstated according to the FCC’s plan, the internet would be treated as a utility, like electricity or water, and subject to the same government micromanagement typically associated with public utilities. By classifying the internet as a common carrier, the FCC would be granted new and expansive powers, including the potential ability to set and control prices.

The Court noted in its stay order that treating the free and open internet as a common carrier was a major decision, and not one that the FCC has the power to make. By pointing out the glaring overreach of the proposed rulemaking, the court acknowledged what has long been true: the internet was never a utility and has always thrived when internet providers can compete for consumers’ business by offering innovative and efficient internet service.

While the stay is a step in the right direction, the reinstatement of net neutrality still looms. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr concluded his statement on the decision with a call to action rather than a time to rest on laurels, “At bottom, yesterday’s court decision was a good win and a step in the right direction. But the work to unwind the Biden-Harris Administration’s regulatory overreach continues, including at the merits stage of this case.”

The stay is temporary, but the necessity of a competitive and free internet is not. Moving forward, the FCC and Congress should prioritize bringing the millions of offline Americans the internet that the court helped preserve—one that is innovative, vibrant, and not subject to the whims of a vast bureaucracy.