The battle for net neutrality seems never-ending. Over the last 15 years, federal net neutrality rules have seen a continuous back-and-forth. In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under President Barack Obama established the Open Internet Order, which prevented internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking or slowing down legal internet traffic—a core principle of net neutrality. However, ISPs challenged these regulations, leading a court to block them. The FCC updated the framework in 2015, which was again overturned in 2017 during President Donald Trump’s administration. Hopes for a revival in 2024 faded quickly when another court struck it down, resulting in a tough year for both the open internet and broadband governance overall.
Instead of challenging the court’s decision, the Trump administration’s FCC opted to eliminate the rules altogether, bypassing public comment. This was part of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative, aimed at scrapping what he deemed “unnecessary” regulations.
ISPs have long criticized net neutrality regulations as burdensome. For example, USTelecom’s president and CEO, Jonathan Spalter, called the 2024 vote to restore net neutrality rules “counterproductive, unnecessary, and anti-consumer.” On the other hand, Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel at Free Press, argues that ISPs often face minimal financial repercussions from these rules and might already be following them. He noted that many telecom companies tell investors they are operating under these guidelines anyway. “I think a lot of their complaints about the supposed ‘burdens’ from these rules are really just ideological in nature,” Wood stated.
So why the push for regulations if ISPs are already (at least in theory) compliant? It boils down to accountability and transparency. Regulations ensure it’s voters, not ISPs, who dictate the rules governing the internet—without them, ISPs could easily change their practices in the future.
The FCC’s anti-regulatory stance extends beyond net neutrality. Chao Jun Liu, a senior legislative associate at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), highlights the FCC’s recent rollback of cybersecurity rules from the Biden administration. Additionally, Carr’s FCC eliminated requirements for ISPs to provide “nutrition labels” on their broadband pricing, labeling these requirements “burdensome.”
“There is very much this theme of ISPs just wanting to operate without limits and without guidance,” Liu told The Verge.
While federal regulations for ISPs seem to be fading, they’re not the only form of protection for consumers. After the FCC’s rules were reversed, state legislators began acting on net neutrality around the late 2010s. California’s 2018 net neutrality law stands as a national benchmark, incorporating elements absent from the 2015 federal standards, including a ban on zero-rating, which lets ISPs exempt specific apps or services from data caps. Other states like Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Jersey, and Vermont have followed suit with similar legislation.
In response to the latest repeal, new initiatives have emerged. In June, Maine passed a bipartisan net neutrality bill without a signature from Governor Janet Mills. A bill aimed at expanding “public utility” net neutrality rules to ISPs was introduced in Pennsylvania in March. Similar legislation has also appeared in both the New York state Senate and Assembly this year.
ISPs have so far largely refrained from openly providing paid prioritization or traditional “fast lanes,” a stance that supporters of net neutrality attribute, at least in part, to state-level regulations. John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, remarked, “I think that state-level net neutrality laws, and the threat of new ones, has kept some of the worst outcomes in check.”
However, this caution may be shifting. T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T have started offering network slicing on their 5G networks, allowing certain customers, mainly businesses, to pay for virtual networks that deliver higher speeds. While this practice doesn’t directly contradict net neutrality, it could pave the way for more segmented networks.
State-level laws are now also in the crosshairs of deregulation efforts. In October, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) made moves to press states to exempt ISPs from their net neutrality laws to qualify for funding from the Biden-era Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. In a speech at the Hudson Institute, NTIA administrator Arielle Roth labeled state-level net neutrality laws as a form of rate regulation, which dictates service pricing.
While accusations of rate regulation have become commonplace, Matt Wood of Free Press claims these arguments are exaggerated. He contends that while BEAD prohibits rate regulation, it doesn’t necessarily apply to state-level net neutrality laws. According to Wood, opponents of net neutrality “characterize any and every consumer safeguard as rate regulation,” which he believes does not significantly influence the rates companies can charge for broadband services.
This situation is part of a broader deregulatory agenda. Chao Jun Liu of EFF noted parallels between efforts to manipulate BEAD funding in relation to AI regulation, highlighting new executive order developments. “This is very much a Brendan Carr, Trump administration creation,” Liu stated.
As the urgency for broadband expansion continues to grow, the Trump administration’s actions threaten critical infrastructure funding to undermine tech regulations. Despite being a bipartisan initiative, BEAD has become a battleground for this ongoing debate. “Why are we making broadband deployment, which is pretty popular and bipartisan, into yet another front in these culture wars?” Wood questioned.
Legal experts have pointed out that Roth and the NTIA may not possess the authority to override state-level net neutrality laws for the sake of BEAD funding. Nevertheless, it seems likely that discussions over these funds will further delay the rollout of BEAD and its goal of enhancing broadband access, particularly for underserved communities.
So, as the tug-of-war over net neutrality rages on, issues surrounding broadband access in the U.S. persist. Internet affordability remains a pressing concern, especially in rural areas where residents often have limited options for service providers. BEAD was designed to help tackle these challenges but risks becoming embroiled in debates over AI regulations.
Even in regions with strong internet access, high costs continue to be a significant hurdle, especially after the Affordable Connectivity Program ended nearly two years ago. Moreover, a wave of new bills proposing widespread age verification online has ignited discussions about privacy, censorship, and free speech.
In summary, not just the future of net neutrality but the entire landscape of the internet hangs in the balance as we head into 2026.
