By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Sixth Circuit Court ruling, heavily influenced by the recent Loper Bright Supreme Court decision, blocked the Biden FCC’s attempt to reinstate net neutrality rules. This decision, echoing telecom lobbyist arguments, effectively eliminates significant federal consumer protection for broadband services. The ruling diminishes the FCC’s authority, leveraging a claim of “heavy-handed regulation” despite the modest nature of the rules and their broad public support. This outcome reflects a broader corporate strategy to dismantle federal oversight and leaves states to grapple with creating and enforcing their own consumer protections.
Read the original article here
The Trump-appointed Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals just gutted net neutrality, effectively dismantling what little consumer protection remained in the pathetic state of US broadband. This isn’t just a minor setback; it’s a catastrophic blow to the average internet user.
This decision, unsurprisingly, heavily relies on the recent Supreme Court’s Loper Bright ruling, a hatchet job on regulatory independence. This ruling essentially empowers corporations to operate with minimal oversight, further enriching them at the expense of consumers. The “land of the free” seems more like the land of corporate greed with each passing day.
The telecom industry, with its army of lobbyists and consultants, has long opposed any form of federal regulation, whether it’s basic pricing transparency or accurate broadband maps. Their sole aim seems to be maximizing profits, regardless of the consequences for consumers. Now, they are poised to achieve their ultimate goal.
Brendan Carr, an FCC commissioner appointed by Trump, embodies this anti-consumer sentiment. His history speaks volumes: authoring a chapter in a document outlining proposed FCC policies for a future Trump administration, supporting changes to Section 230, opposing net neutrality protections, and even publicly accusing social media platforms of bias against Trump’s campaign. Carr’s actions demonstrate a clear preference for corporate interests over consumer welfare, effectively acting as a mouthpiece for those who benefit from deregulation. His vocal support for Elon Musk and his criticism of the Biden administration’s broadband initiatives further expose his biases and disregard for public good.
The consequences are dire. Expect higher prices, less competition, and significantly worse internet service. The lack of any meaningful pushback is astounding. The outrage over comparatively trivial issues pales in comparison to the outrage this decision deserves. The question remains: why is there such a lack of public outcry over a decision that directly impacts every internet user?
The silence is deafening. Where is the widespread anger, the organized protests, the demand for accountability? The indifference seems to stem from a combination of factors: political polarization, widespread apathy, and the sheer complexity of the issue. Many simply don’t understand the far-reaching implications of this decision or lack the time and energy to engage in political activism.
This isn’t just about the internet; it’s a symptom of a much larger problem: the unchecked power of corporations and the complicity of politicians who prioritize corporate interests over the needs of their constituents. This decision is a stark warning sign that our system is failing to protect consumers and the erosion of rights goes largely unnoticed by a comfortable, distracted populace. Many are simply too comfortable to care, too distracted by other issues, or simply too unaware of the insidious nature of this corporate overreach.
The situation mirrors other industries where unregulated monopolies dominate, like the poultry industry, leading to unethical practices and consumer harm. The lack of accountability creates a vicious cycle of corporate greed and consumer exploitation. The current political system seems incapable of effectively challenging this power imbalance, leading to the slow, steady erosion of consumer protections across the board.
The path forward requires a multi-pronged approach. Increased public awareness is crucial. Consumers need to understand the ramifications of this decision and demand action from their elected officials. Lobbying at the state level might create a patchwork of regulations, but even that offers a small degree of protection from completely unchecked corporate greed. Ultimately, a fundamental shift in political power is necessary to truly address the root causes of this problem. Until then, we will continue to be at the mercy of corporate interests, enjoying ever-increasing prices for steadily diminishing services.