Net Neutrality: A Brief Resurgence Before Disappearing Again

The battle for net neutrality feels like an endless cycle of wins and losses. Over the past 15 years, federal net neutrality regulations have been in a constant state of flux. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established the Open Internet Order in 2010 under President Obama, which prohibited internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking or throttling legal internet traffic—essentially the core principle of net neutrality. However, this was challenged in court at the behest of ISPs. An updated set of rules was introduced in 2015, only to be dismantled in 2017 during President Trump’s first term. Hopes for a revival in 2024 were short-lived, as a court decision quickly reversed the progress, leading to a tumultuous year for both the open internet and broadband regulations.

Instead of contesting the court’s decision, the Trump administration’s FCC opted to eliminate the rules entirely, bypassing public input. This was part of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s initiative to eliminate what he deemed “unnecessary” regulations. ISPs have long criticized net neutrality as burdensome. For example, USTelecom’s president argued that the 2024 vote to restore these rules was a “counterproductive, unnecessary, and anti-consumer regulatory distraction.”

However, Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel at a nonprofit organization, pointed out that ISPs often experience minimal financial impact from these regulations and may already be adhering to them. He noted that many cable and phone companies, when discussing their operations with investors, indicate they are already compliant, suggesting that their complaints about regulatory burdens are more ideological than practical.

So why maintain regulations if ISPs are already (at least theoretically) following them? The answer lies in accountability and transparency. Regulations ensure that voters, not ISPs, dictate the rules governing the internet, preventing providers from altering their practices without oversight.

The FCC’s deregulatory agenda extends beyond net neutrality. Chao Jun Liu, a senior legislative associate at a nonprofit, highlighted the FCC’s recent decision to roll back cybersecurity rules established during the Biden administration. Carr’s FCC also eliminated requirements for ISPs to provide clear pricing information, arguing that it was too burdensome for them.

“There is a clear trend where ISPs want to operate without restrictions or oversight,” Liu remarked.

While federal regulations for ISPs seem to be fading, consumers still have some protection. In the late 2010s, state legislators began addressing net neutrality following the FCC’s 2015 order reversal. California’s 2018 net neutrality law is often viewed as the gold standard, incorporating provisions absent from the federal standards, such as banning zero-rating, which allows ISPs to exempt certain services from data caps. Other states, including Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Jersey, and Vermont, have enacted similar laws.

The latest repeal has sparked renewed efforts at the state level. Maine passed a bipartisan net neutrality bill in June without the governor’s signature, and Pennsylvania introduced a bill to extend “public utility” net neutrality rules to ISPs. Similar proposals have emerged in New York’s state Senate and Assembly this year.

ISPs have largely refrained from openly offering paid prioritization or traditional “fast lanes,” a trend supporters of net neutrality attribute to state regulations. John Bergmayer, legal director at a nonprofit, stated that state-level net neutrality laws and the threat of new ones have helped mitigate some of the worst potential outcomes.

However, this cautious approach may be shifting. T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T are now offering network slicing on their 5G networks, allowing certain customers, primarily businesses, to pay for faster virtual networks. While this doesn’t directly violate net neutrality principles, it could pave the way for more segmented networks.

State laws are now also in the crosshairs of deregulation efforts. In October, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) began pressuring states to exempt ISPs from their net neutrality laws to qualify for funding from the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. NTIA administrator Arielle Roth referred to state-level net neutrality laws as “a form of rate regulation,” which involves determining what companies can charge for their services.

Accusations of rate regulation are becoming more common, but Wood argues they are exaggerated. While BEAD prohibits rate regulation, state-level net neutrality laws do not necessarily fall under that category. Opponents of net neutrality often label any consumer protection as rate regulation, despite it not significantly affecting the rates companies can charge for broadband services.

This is part of a broader deregulatory agenda. Liu noted parallels between efforts to leverage BEAD funds against AI regulation, including a recent executive order. These attempts to link AI regulation with broadband funding represent a new development, which Liu attributes to the influence of Carr and the Trump administration.

As broadband expansion remains crucial, the Trump administration’s actions threaten essential infrastructure funding in the name of attacking tech regulation. Despite being a bipartisan initiative, BEAD has become a battleground for these debates. Wood questioned, “Why are we turning broadband deployment, a generally popular and bipartisan issue, into yet another front in these culture wars?”

Legal experts have pointed out that Roth and the NTIA may lack the authority to override state-level net neutrality laws for the sake of BEAD funding. However, the ongoing discussions surrounding these funds are likely to delay the rollout of BEAD and its mission to enhance broadband access, particularly in underserved areas.

As the tug-of-war over net neutrality continues, so do the challenges surrounding broadband access in the U.S. Internet affordability remains a significant issue, especially in rural regions where residents often have limited provider options. BEAD was designed to tackle this problem but now risks being mired in debates over AI regulations.

Even in areas with decent internet access, high costs persist, particularly since the Affordable Connectivity Program ended nearly two years ago. Additionally, a wave of proposed bills could introduce widespread age verification requirements online, igniting discussions about privacy, censorship, and free speech.

All of this—beyond just the fate of net neutrality—leaves the internet in a precarious position as we approach 2026.