Network Neutrality

Ever since Donald Trump bumped Brendan Carr up to chair of the Federal Communications Commission in November 2024 (after naming him a commissioner during his first term), Chairman Carr has attacked the country’s media, entertainment and even tech giants with a cool fury, threatening their business and, critics say, attempting to bully them into more favorable coverage of the President. Historically concerned with the sundry matters of broadcast licenses and station fines, the FCC hardly would seem like the centerpiece of a major media-suppression effort.

Today’s defining technology is the internet, along with the interlocking digital tools that contributed to and resulted from its inception. Artificial intelligence may well usher in its own technology epoch, but even this branch of computer science is as beholden to the internet — as the internet is to electricity. How and whether high-speed internet access is like the electrification of homes can teach us something. Getting online and knowing what to do once you’re there matters.

There is an interesting trend of internet service providers selling broadband products that are not always guaranteed to be at the same speed and quality as other customers. I've especially noticed this practice in recent years from big fixed wireless providers that sell home broadband using cellular spectrum. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon have all reserved the right to throttle customers any time that the network gets too busy. It’s easy to understand why cellular companies would throttle home broadband customer first—they are protecting their cellular customers.

A federal appeals court’s rejection of the Federal Communications Commission’s decade-plus push for stronger oversight of the internet was a crushing defeat for “net neutrality” as it has been pursued since the Obama administration. But the ruling could also be seen as the latest indictment of the inability of Congress to regulate at anywhere near the speed of tech.

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit brought an end to the decade-long fight over net neutrality by prohibiting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from applying Title II common carrier regulation to broadband providers. The ruling reaffirms the principle that important policy decisions should be made by Congress, not by agencies under the guise of interpreting ambiguous statutes. Th

Two Democratic members of the Federal Communications Commission believe Congress should step up and codify network neutrality rules as federal law after the Sixth Circuit shot down the FCC's latest version of the rules. Such a move would finally stop the pendulum swings of the on-again/off-again FCC rules on network neutrality.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Federal Communication Commission’s attempt to reinstate net neutrality. The decision puts perhaps the final nail in the coffin for open internet regulation.

Any time there is a change of administration at the White House the Federal Communications Commission gets a new Chairman and a new agenda—and we now know the new Chairman will be current Commissioner Brandon Carr. With a new Chairman comes new policies, but also a turn against some of the policies of the previous FCC. There are a few things that obviously get reversed. First is net neutrality, which is poorly named and is really an effort to put some regulatory oversight on broadband. It seems likely that Commissioner Carr will reverse Chairman Rosenworcel’s decision on discrimination.

President-elect Donald Trump announced he will appoint current Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr to be the next FCC chair. Here’s a few observations on what this is likely to mean for the telecommunications and broadband industry. Net Neutrality undoubtedly will be reversed again. Since its inception, it has come and gone, depending on which party is in the White House. A Republican commission under Carr could have another big impact that would be detrimental to big tech, according to a research note from Washington insider and National Broadband Plan author Blair Levin.

We’re about to see the fourth change of the party in the White House in this century, and that means a fourth time that telecommunications regulations will flip-flop in what I’ve called the regulatory yoyo. Regulatory policies have always changed to some extent when the party in power changes, but in this century, the degree of change from administration to administration is more intense than what we saw in the past. Much of the regulatory yoyo comes from attempts to regulate broadband.