Regulatory classification

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.

The Republican who is likely to lead the Federal Communications Commission under President-elect Donald Trump detailed how he would run the agency when he wrote a chapter for the conservative Heritage Foundation's Project 2025. Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr, a longtime opponent of net neutrality rules and other broadband regulations, has also made his views clear numerous times when opposing rulemakings initiated by the current Democratic majority.

Though votes are still being counted, the verdict appears to be clear. Donald Trump won. So, now what? Surprisingly, that question has a few easy answers—as well as a few that are less clear. First things first. Historically, the party in power has held a 3-2 majority at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), allowing them to carry out the president’s policy agenda.

The three-judge panel hearing the case over the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) now-stayed order to regulate the internet using Title II rules peppered the parties in the case with questions about the definitions of “information services,” “telecommunications” and “telecommunications services.” The panel also questioned the relevance of the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Chevron doctrine and the ambiguities created by the FCC find

Attorneys for the Federal Communications Commission and groups representing the broadband industry argued about the future of net neutrality to a panel of appeals court judges on October 31. The hearing was part of an endless political ping-pong game over net neutrality rules—which reclassify internet service providers (ISPs) as common carriers, barring them from selectively throttling web traffic. After being enacted under President Barack Obama and repealed under his successor, Donald Trump, they were reinstated by Joe Biden’s FCC in April.

The Affordable Connectivity Program, or ACP, enrolled more Americans than any previous broadband affordability program in the United States. Despite that success, the ACP faced substantial criticism from conservative members of Congress who saw it as giving away taxpayer dollars to many households that don’t actually need help affording their internet bill. The question going forward is not if the government will subsidize broadband service for Americans, but how. This paper attempts to inform that debate by examining four specific critiques of the ACP:

Broadband providers want to avoid net neutrality because it comes with more expansive federal oversight. But one trade group for Internet Service Providers and state officials told judges that it comes with at least one big benefit: backup from the government in negotiations with utility pole owners. The Federal Communications Commission is currently trying to keep alive its net neutrality rules, which would reclassify broadband as a telecom service subject to common carrier regulations. Broadband trade associations challenging the move in court convinced a panel of the U.S.

In issuing a temporary stay of the Federal Communications Commission 2024 Net Neutrality order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has gone beyond recent teachings of the Supreme Court to erroneously block exercise of regulatory authority that Congress clearly intended the FCC to exercise. From the Federal Reserve Board to the Federal Trade Commission and beyond, expert agencies have been created as a means for Congress to ensure that durable legislative principles keep up with the times. The current Supreme Court seems not to share that view.

Internet service providers (ISPs) asked the US Supreme Court to strike down a New York law that requires broadband providers to offer $15-per-month service to people with low incomes. Although ISPs were recently able to block the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules, this petition shows the firms are worried about states stepping into the regulatory vacuum with various kinds of laws targeting broadband prices and practices. A broadband-industry victory over federal regulation could bolster the authority of New York and other states to regulate broadband.