Broadcasters called for the FCC to “delete” nearly every reporting and filing obligation the agency imposes on them in scores of comments posted in docket 25-133 Monday, but the agency should roll back ownership rules first, NAB said. Multichannel video programming distribution (MVPD) interests and allies repeatedly argued that the highly competitive video distribution marketplace necessitates doing away with rules they claim tip the competitive scales. The docket also received many comments from space interests and the telecom industry (see 2504140037 and 2504140046).
A White House executive order that says agencies can dispense with notice-and-comment requirements when repealing some rules is unlikely to have an immediate impact on the FCC because Chairman Brendan Carr has at his disposal many traditional ways of deleting rules, academics, industry lobbyists and attorneys said in interviews. Along with the order on notice and comment, the White House also released an order requiring agencies to scuttle “anti-competitive” regulations and another repealing showerhead measures that could affect how agencies justify decisions.
An FCC advisory opinion on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would be “a fool's errand” and should be “DOA,” Commissioner Anna Gomez said Sunday in a thread on X responding to a New York Post report that FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is planning to act on 230 soon. “The FCC should not be in the business of controlling online speech,” Gomez said. “Congress and the courts must quickly step in to stop this unlawful power grab.”
With the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling overturning the FCC’s latest order (see 2501020047), the U.S. has likely seen the last gasps of net neutrality, Free State Foundation President Randolph May said in the Yale Journal on Regulation. “Because of Loper Bright’s burial of Chevron deference, there’s a good chance that the ‘net neutrality’ saga, finally, may be over, at least in the courts,” May wrote. “With the impending change in the FCC’s makeup, there’s virtually no chance the agency will seek reconsideration or appeal to the Supreme Court,” he added. Other parties in the litigation “favoring regulating ISPs like public utilities could pursue those avenues, but it’s unlikely they will want to risk a Supreme Court decision affirming the Sixth Circuit decision.” Congress, not the FCC, is “the appropriate forum for the debate regarding adoption of a proper policy framework for broadband providers.” Daniel Lyons, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, also praised the 6th Circuit decision. “The court eschewed the easier path of ruling under the Major Questions Doctrine and instead tackled the complex and often contradictory language of the Communications Act,” Lyons wrote in a Thursday blog post. He saw the decision as a win for industry and innovation. The FCC can no longer “impose a one-size-fits-all business model on broadband providers, allowing them to explore innovations like 5G network slicing without fearing regulatory backlash,” he said: ISPs “are no longer at risk of rate regulation and other regulatory requirements that come with Title II classification, a category originally designed to discipline the telephone system.”
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling overturning the FCC’s latest net neutrality order Thursday was based on the court’s reading of the Communications Act and failed to dive into major questions items, as laid out in recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (see 2409030030). It also means the next FCC, under President-elect Donald Trump, likely won’t spend its early days on a reversal of the order, which was approved 3-2 in April (see 2404250004).
The extent to which the U.S. Supreme Court decides the USF challenge on theoretical rather than practical grounds could have major implications for whether the court issues a decision that overturns the program's funding mechanism. The court said last week it will hear a challenge to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 9-7 en banc decision, which found the USF contribution factor is a "misbegotten tax.” Consumers' Research challenged the contribution factor in the 5th Circuit and other courts.
A plan for cutting regulations and federal institutions such as the FCC could target broadband access programs and media regulations, but it's likely that a wave of litigation will stymie it, administrative law professors and attorneys told us. Future Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) heads Vivek Ramasawamy and Space X CEO Elon Musk laid out their plans in a Wall Street Journal opinion column. “It's not to say that maybe some of these changes shouldn't be happening, but, you know, they're taking a wrecking ball to fix something that requires a little bit more finesse than that,” said University of Idaho law professor Linda Jellum. Asked about possible DOGE cuts at the FCC, incoming FCC Chairman Brendan Carr last week told reporters, “There's no question, there's tons of room for driving more efficiency at the FCC." He didn't elaborate.
The incoming Republican administration and Congress will likely work at rolling back many of the current FCC’s policies through a combination of agency action, court decisions and the Congressional Review Act (CRA), attorneys and analysts told us in interviews. The CRA's threat also will likely limit the current FCC's agenda, they said. “The CRA is kind of looming over anything the FCC wants to try to do before the administration switches over,” said Jeffrey Westling, American Action Forum director-technology and innovation.
A three-judge appeals court panel hearing a challenge (docket 24-7000) of the FCC's Title II reclassification of broadband questioned industry groups and the agency Thursday about the major questions doctrine (see 2409030030). Oral argument was held at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges also questioned the relationship between the doctrine and Chevron deference, as well as the statutory interpretation of the Communications Act and the FCC's changing positions over time.
Broadcasters, MVPDs and network programmers want the FCC to shelve plans that require disclosures about the use of AI in political ads because they’re unworkably burdensome, exceed agency authority and won’t affect digital platforms, said reply filings in docket 24-211.