Aura Kasih
The persistent struggle for an open and equitable internet, commonly known as net neutrality, has once again found itself in a state of flux, demonstrating a cyclical pattern of regulatory advances and subsequent reversals that leaves the digital landscape perpetually contested. For over a decade and a half, the fundamental principles governing internet service providers’ (ISPs) treatment of online traffic have been a subject of intense debate and fluctuating federal policy, creating an environment of uncertainty for both consumers and the digital economy.
The initial federal foray into establishing net neutrality principles occurred in 2010 under the Obama administration, with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enacting the Open Internet Order. This landmark regulation aimed to prevent ISPs from blocking, throttling, or engaging in paid prioritization of lawful internet content. Essentially, it sought to ensure that all data traversing the internet was treated equally, irrespective of its origin or destination, thus preserving the internet’s open nature. However, this foundational rule faced immediate legal challenges from industry giants, leading to its eventual blockage by the courts at the behest of ISPs.
A subsequent effort to codify these protections emerged in 2015 with an updated FCC framework. This iteration offered a more robust regulatory structure, reclassifying broadband internet access as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, which granted the FCC stronger authority to enforce net neutrality. For a period, this provided a more stable regulatory environment. Yet, this hard-won progress was significantly curtailed in 2017 when the FCC, under the Trump administration, voted to repeal the 2015 Open Internet Order. This decision effectively dismantled the federal net neutrality protections, removing the prohibitions against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.
The pendulum swung back once more in 2024, with the FCC signaling a strong intent to reinstate net neutrality rules. This anticipated resurgence of federal oversight, driven by a desire to re-establish a level playing field for online content and services, was met with optimism by consumer advocacy groups and proponents of an open internet. However, this perceived victory proved to be remarkably short-lived. Within mere months of its passage, a court ruling struck down these newly reinstated regulations, plunging the future of the open internet and broadband regulation into a period of considerable instability. This latest reversal underscores the fragility of federal net neutrality protections and the persistent challenges in solidifying them into enduring policy.
Following the most recent judicial setback, the FCC, under the leadership of Chairman Brendan Carr during the Trump administration, adopted a proactive deregulatory stance. Rather than engaging in further legal battles to defend the reinstated rules, the FCC preemptively removed them, a move that notably bypassed the customary public comment period. This action was framed as part of Chairman Carr’s broader "Delete, Delete, Delete" initiative, a strategic effort aimed at dismantling what was characterized as "unnecessary" regulatory burdens on the telecommunications industry.
Internet Service Providers have consistently voiced their opposition to net neutrality regulations, often characterizing them as overly burdensome and detrimental to innovation and investment. Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO of USTelecom, has publicly stated that the 2024 vote to reinstate net neutrality was a "counterproductive, unnecessary, and anti-consumer regulatory distraction." This perspective suggests that ISPs believe these rules hinder their ability to manage their networks effectively and to develop new business models.
However, this narrative is often challenged by consumer advocacy organizations. Matt Wood, Vice President of Policy and General Counsel at Free Press, argues that the purported financial burdens imposed by net neutrality rules are often exaggerated. In discussions, Wood has pointed out that many ISPs, when communicating with their business operations and financial stakeholders, acknowledge that they are already operating in a manner consistent with net neutrality principles. This suggests that the complaints lodged against these regulations may stem more from an ideological resistance to oversight rather than genuine operational constraints. "A lot of their complaints about the supposed ‘burdens’ from these rules are really just ideological in nature," Wood has stated, implying that the desire for unfettered operational freedom, rather than economic necessity, drives much of the opposition.
The core rationale behind enacting regulations, even if ISPs are perceived to be compliant in practice, lies in the principles of accountability and transparency. Formal rules ensure that the governance of the internet’s infrastructure is determined by public policy and consumer interests, rather than solely by the commercial decisions of a few dominant providers. Without clear regulatory frameworks, there is an inherent risk that ISPs could alter their practices in the future, potentially leading to a less open and equitable internet experience for users.
The FCC’s current anti-regulatory trajectory extends beyond net neutrality, impacting other critical areas of telecom oversight. Chao Jun Liu, Senior Legislative Associate at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), highlights the FCC’s recent decision to reverse Biden-era cybersecurity rules for telecommunications companies. Furthermore, Chairman Carr’s FCC has rolled back requirements for ISPs to provide transparent "nutrition labels" for their broadband pricing. This move, justified by the FCC as alleviating "burdensome" disclosure requirements for ISPs, reduces consumer access to clear and comparable information about internet service costs and features.
Liu characterizes this broader deregulatory push as an attempt by ISPs to operate without significant limitations or external oversight. "ISPs just want to do whatever they want to do with no limits and nobody telling them how to do it, when to do it, [or] on what timeline," Liu has articulated, emphasizing the perceived desire for unchecked autonomy within the industry. This sentiment underscores a fundamental tension between the industry’s pursuit of operational flexibility and the public interest in ensuring fair and accessible internet services.
While federal regulations for ISPs appear to be in a state of continuous erosion, consumer protection is not solely reliant on federal action. A significant development in the net neutrality landscape has been the rise of state-level legislative efforts. Following the repeal of the 2015 federal order, several states began to enact their own net neutrality laws. California’s 2018 net neutrality legislation, often cited as a benchmark, incorporated even more stringent consumer protections than the federal standards it replaced, including provisions that ban zero-rating – a practice that exempts certain applications or services from data caps, potentially favoring specific content providers. Other states, including Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Jersey, and Vermont, have since adopted similar measures, creating a patchwork of protections across the nation.
The recent federal reversals have further galvanized these state-level initiatives. In June, Maine enacted a bipartisan net neutrality bill, which became law without the governor’s signature. Pennsylvania introduced legislation in March to expand public utility-style net neutrality rules to ISPs. Similar legislative proposals have also emerged in the New York State Senate and Assembly this year, indicating a sustained commitment at the state level to uphold open internet principles.
The existence and enforcement of these state-level regulations are credited by net neutrality advocates with deterring ISPs from engaging in overtly discriminatory practices, such as implementing paid prioritization or "fast lanes." John Bergmayer, Legal Director at Public Knowledge, stated in a comment to The Verge that "state-level net neutrality laws, and the threat of new ones, has kept some of the worst outcomes in check." This suggests that the potential for legal repercussions at the state level has served as a significant deterrent against the most egregious violations of net neutrality principles.
However, this protective shield may also be facing increasing pressure. Major telecommunications companies, including T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T, are increasingly offering "network slicing" on their 5G networks. This technology allows for the creation of virtual networks with differentiated performance characteristics, often prioritizing speed for business customers. While not inherently a violation of current net neutrality standards, critics argue that network slicing could pave the way for a more segmented internet, where differentiated service tiers become the norm, potentially undermining the concept of a universally accessible and equally treated internet.
The current federal administration’s deregulatory agenda is now directly targeting these state-level protections. In October, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) initiated a campaign to pressure states into exempting ISPs from their net neutrality and price regulations 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 described state-level net neutrality laws as a form of "rate regulation," a practice that is generally prohibited under the BEAD program’s guidelines.
This characterization of net neutrality laws as rate regulation is contested by consumer advocates. Matt Wood of Free Press argues that this framing is an oversimplification. He contends that state-level net neutrality laws do not inherently constitute rate regulation and that opponents are mischaracterizing consumer safeguards as impediments to pricing freedom. "Opponents of net neutrality ‘characterize any and every consumer safeguard as rate regulation when I don’t think it actually has any legitimate impact on the rates companies can charge for the services they offer in the broadband space,’" Wood elaborated.
This strategy of leveraging federal funding to influence state-level policy is not isolated to net neutrality. Chao Jun Liu of the EFF notes a similar pattern in efforts to connect AI regulation with broadband funding, citing a recent executive order that aims to prevent states from enacting their own AI regulations. Liu identifies these coordinated efforts as a hallmark of the Trump administration’s approach to deregulation, stating, "This is very much a Brendan Carr, Trump administration special." This suggests a broader strategy to dismantle regulatory frameworks across various technology sectors by linking them to critical infrastructure funding initiatives.
The current situation presents a complex dilemma: the critical need for broadband expansion, particularly in underserved areas, is being leveraged as a tool to dismantle established regulatory protections. The BEAD program, a bipartisan initiative designed to bridge the digital divide, is now becoming a battleground for ideological disputes over internet governance. As Matt Wood of Free Press pointedly asks, "Why are we making broadband deployment, which is pretty popular and pretty bipartisan, into yet another front in these culture wars?" This highlights the politicization of a vital infrastructure program.
Legal experts have raised questions about the NTIA’s authority to preempt state-level net neutrality laws for the purpose of BEAD funding, suggesting that the administration’s stance may be on shaky legal ground. Nevertheless, the ongoing debate over these funds is likely to further delay the rollout of the BEAD program, potentially hindering its core mission of expanding broadband access to communities that need it most.
The protracted tug-of-war over net neutrality regulations mirrors the persistent challenges in achieving widespread broadband access and affordability in the United States. Internet affordability remains a significant hurdle, particularly in rural areas where limited competition often leads to higher prices. The discontinuation of the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) nearly two years ago has exacerbated this issue, leaving many households struggling to afford reliable internet service. Compounding these challenges, the US is facing a wave of proposed legislation mandating widespread online age verification, which raises concerns about privacy, censorship, and the fundamental principles of free speech in the digital realm.
Taken together, these interconnected issues paint a concerning picture for the future of the internet in 2026. The ongoing erosion of net neutrality, coupled with broader regulatory shifts and the potential for increased internet fragmentation, leaves the digital ecosystem in a precarious state. The battle for an open, accessible, and equitable internet is far from over, and its outcome will profoundly shape the future of communication, commerce, and civic engagement.
Ridwan Kamil
Safa Marwah
Lisa Mariana
Ayu Aulia