Advocacy groups have decided against appealing a court decision that struck down the Biden administration’s net neutrality rules. The groups cited concerns about the conservative majority in the Supreme Court and the current FCC, which opposes net neutrality. The legal battle centered on the FCC’s ability to classify broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, a key step for implementing common-carrier regulations. These regulations, originally established during the Obama era, prohibited practices like blocking or throttling content and paid prioritization.
Read More
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 More
A US appeals court recently blocked the Biden administration’s attempt to reinstate net neutrality rules. This decision, leveraging the Supreme Court’s overturning of Chevron deference, has sparked significant debate and concern. Many believe this signifies a setback for consumers and a win for large corporations.
The argument that the court’s decision should end efforts to restore net neutrality and shift focus to other consumer concerns like improving internet access and promoting online innovation seems shortsighted. It’s not an either/or proposition; Americans can simultaneously prioritize both net neutrality and improvements in internet access and innovation. The idea of individually tailored internet plans, often presented as a benefit of ending net neutrality, rings hollow.… Continue reading
Under a potential Ajit Pai-esque chairmanship by Brendan Carr, the FCC’s direction would drastically shift. This includes deregulation of internet service providers, potentially at the expense of increased regulation and financial burdens on Big Tech companies. Furthermore, a Carr-led FCC might target news organizations deemed critical of the administration and prioritize funding for projects like Elon Musk’s Starlink, potentially disregarding existing regulatory decisions. The FCC chair’s significant authority, as outlined by Carr himself, underscores the potential for sweeping changes under his leadership.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood