from the not-with-bang,-but-with-whining dept
The telecommunications industry (with the help of the new Trump Supreme Court), has been drooling for months at the prospect that the Trump-stocked court will soon deliver a killing blow to the FCC’s net neutrality protections (read: the popular FCC rules designed to prevent. telecommunications monopolies from abusing market power to beat customers and competitors).
As predicted, this week, the Trumplican-heavy Sixth Circuit delivered, with a ruling that blocked Biden’s FCC plan to restore net neutrality rules. All of these decisions seem to be straight out of the telecom lobbyist’s playbook, with many bogus claims about how this basic regulation threatens the open web and constitutes a “burdensome regulatory regime”:
“Today we consider the latest FCC order, issued in 2024, which revives the FCC’s burdensome regulatory regime.”
To be clear, the FCC’s net neutrality rules are ridiculous by international standards. They have many loopholes for ISPs to stumble upon. They have never been consistently enforced by the FCC which is uncommon and arresting. And he sees great popularity among America’s bipartisan majority. Right out of the gate calling the rules “heavy-handed” informs.
As a refresher, the “net neutrality debate” is more than just “net neutrality.” It’s about whether we want consumer protection officials to protect broadband consumers from a monopolized and corrupt industry filled with unpopular predatory companies that routinely raise poor service standards, price gouging, and bad behavior.
The more specific legal debate here is whether ISPs should be classified as “information services” under Title II of the Communications Act, which would reduce the FCC’s authority over telecommunications. Or as “telecommunications services,” which would expand the FCC’s role in protecting consumers from fraud, improving 911 reliability, fighting consolidation, and encouraging cybersecurity standards.
But contrary to public and press pretenses, the telecommunications industry’s policy position in this regard is not consistent; giants like AT&T and Verizon have waffled on whether or not they support one classification or another depending on whether they are trying to dodge FTC fines for lying to customers or trying to gobble up billions in taxpayer subsidies. Repeat, because it’s important. The same telecom companies are very happy to have broadband classified as a telecom service when it means they get extra subsidies.
Real Purpose No Consumer Protection Oversight of Any US Company
It usually gets lost in the weeds of press and policy coverage, but “net neutrality” is a bit troubling.
The telcos (and the various think tanks, lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants paid to love them) not only oppose net neutrality, but indeed any federal broadband consumer protection. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about basic price transparency requirements or accurate broadband maps; the telecom industry is desperate to rip you off without pesky federal interference.
They are ready to get what they want, and more. As expected, the Sixth Circuit’s dismantling of net neutrality (and the FCC’s authority more generally) hinges heavily on the recent Trump Supreme Court Loper Bright decision, which has dealt with the last vestiges of regulatory independence:
“Today we consider the latest FCC order, issued in 2024, which revives the FCC’s heavy regulatory regime. According to the Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order, Broadband Internet Service Providers are again considered to offer “telecommunications services” under Title II and therefore must comply net neutrality principle. But unlike the past challenges the DC Circuit considered in Chevron, we cannot respect the FCC’s reading of the statute. Rather, our task is to determine the “best reading of the statute” in the first place.
The company claims that it wants to kill Chevron Deference (which provides regulators with subject matter expertise to create and interpret rules within the limits of Congressional law) because “regulators have run amok.” But the idea that the FCC (which struggled to stand up for AT&T and Comcast in the good old days) has “run amok” is definitely misinformation.
The truth is, with Congress in their back pockets and unable to reform, companies want to deliver the final killing blow to regulators who might get bright ideas about trying to rein in their power or punish them for fraud. This has been dressed up in the press as some sort of noble, good rebalancing institutions (I recommend Law Professor Blake Reid’s dissection of this kerfuffle).
The court did not go quite as far as can have used the recent Loper Bright decision to dismantle all of the FCC’s authority over every last aspect of telecommunications, but the goal here is not subtle: federal consumer protections over your broadband line are dead.
I’m not going to spend too much time dissecting the finer legalese here, because it’s all bullshit. The administration parrots the position of AT&T and Comcast lawyers, insisting on ignoring logic, precedent, and history, and it’s not subtle about it. The better argument, the better legal merits of this debate at this point is like trying to have a meaningful conversation with a damp walnut.
They want journalists and the public to treat this pseudo-legal, pseudo-logical circus with respect and seriousness. I will not. It is corrupt with a lazy coat of paint.
Lose Lose
If the Sixth Circuit doesn’t rule in favor of the big telcos, incoming FCC chairman Brendan Carr (R, AT&T) is poised to dismantle the rules. You may remember Brendan from the first Trump FCC dismantling of net neutrality, which involved creating DDOS attacks to eliminate public anger, and turning a blind eye to the industry using dead and fake people to fill the FCC comment section.
Brendan views consumer protection as a sinister government overreach, but the media and bullying tech companies do not. There is no real logic here. People and journalists should not get lost in the weeds: this is the power of corporations that use their influence on corrupt US courts and regulators to undermine them. entire corporate consumer protection authority, not just some piddly net neutrality rule.
This is not to say that net neutrality is not important. The big ISPs have long shown that they are willing to abuse market power. Ideally, you would need Congress to enact net neutrality legislation to end regulatory ping pong at the FCC, but if Congress does too damaged to functionwho is always a non starter. There are many people who like to make this point in the press (including AT&T). understand it is a non-starter.
The decision of the Sixth Circuit comes ironically (?) on the heels of the revelation that the telecommunications industry has just suffered one of the worst hacking disruptions in American history, thanks (in part) to broad and mindless deregulation and the corrupt refusal to hold telecommunications accountable for. lax security standards. Or pass even the most basic of modern privacy or cybersecurity protection.
The basic argument by telecoms, “free market” Libertarians, and many Republicans has long been that if you eliminate federal oversight of unscrupulous US telecommunications, magic and innovation are off the streets. That’s for sure never has been the case. Without considering removing federal corporate oversight of regional monopolies like Comcast and AT&T and these entities just doubled down on their worst behavior.
Mostly because the same people pushing for mindless deregulation also support AT&T and Comcast’s efforts to ensure there is no meaningful broadband competition.
As a result, the big telcos don’t innovate or compete. These are regional monopolies that effectively buy comfortable positions from corrupt state and federal bureaucrats, who work hard to ensure that there is no competition or serious government oversight. One hopes the end of the net neutrality battle directs attention to the real problem: the combined monopoly power.
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling isn’t all good news for big ISPs like Comcast and AT&T. Courts and legal precedent (for whatever that’s worth) have repeatedly stated that if the federal government were to override federal consumer protection authority, states would have the legal right to enforce their own net neutrality rules.
That said, while many states have net neutrality laws (such as California, Washington, Maine, and Oregon), many others do not. And among those exerciseI highly suspect that implementing net neutrality is not going to be a top priority given all the bottomless immigration, environment, labor, and life and death legal fights that are headed in the cash-strapped countries’ direction during Trump 2.0.
It’s important to understand this is more than just “net neutrality.” This is about corporate power using corruption to take the ax for coherent federal consumer protection finished– according to the pretensions of those who carry out such actions with due care and caution regarding the law.
And of course about far more than telecommunications; post Loper Bright every industry across America is busy making the same arguments about every worker, consumer, public safety, and environmental rules they don’t like, have a massive impact on every industry and privacy that touches every last part of life. The company has achieved (another) generational victory in dismantling consumer protection.
The net neutrality fight may be different and wonky, but if you think about the wider existential, legal, and operational chaos caused by this Trump 2.0 attack on the federal government it has been defeated or will be defeated either way. good for you (unless you’re a racist, idiotic billionaire who doesn’t care about mass suffering), you’re grossly misreading the situation.
Filed Under: 6th circuit , broadband , consumer protection , consumers , corruption , fcc , high speed internet , net neutrality , telecommunications , title ii
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon
