"The only reason" to take the rules off the books now, said one critic, "is to score points with broadband monopolies and their lobbyists, who've fought against essential and popular safeguards for the past two decades straight."
The advocacy group Free Press on Friday blasted U.S. President Donald Trump's Federal Communications Commission chief for an order that rips net neutrality rules off the books, without any time for public comment, following an unfavorable court ruling.
A panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled in January that broadband is an "information service" instead of a "telecommunications service" under federal law, and the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from creating online "fast lanes" and blocking or throttling web content.
Trump-appointed FCC Chair Brendan Carr said in a Friday statement that as part of his "Delete, Delete, Delete" initiative, "we're continuing to clean house at the FCC, working to identify and eliminate rules that no longer serve a purpose, have been on our books for decades, and have no place in the current Code of Federal Regulations."
"Today's action is just the latest step the FCC is taking to follow the Trump administration's effort to usher in prosperity through deregulation," he said of the order that scraps the net neutrality rules. "And it's just one of many, with more on the horizon, so stay tuned."
Responding in a lengthy statement, Free Press vice president of policy and general counselMatt Wood said that "the FCC's so-called deletion today is little more than political grandstanding. It's true that the rules in question were first stayed by the 6th Circuit and then struck down by that appellate court—in a poorly reasoned opinion. So today's bookkeeping maneuver changes very little in reality."
"What's sad about it is Brendan Carr, as usual, prioritizing political theater and ideological obeisance over actual legal reasoning and policy impacts," Wood continued. "There's no need to delete currently inoperative rules, much less to announce it in a summer Friday order. The only reason to do that is to score points with broadband monopolies and their lobbyists, who've fought against essential and popular safeguards for the past two decades straight."
"It also shows subservience to Elon Musk's incredibly destructive government-by-chainsaw attitude—which seems to have outlived Musk himself in some corners of the Trump administration," he argued, referring to the tech billionaire who initially spearheaded the president's Department of Government Efficiency but has since had a public breakup with Trump.
Wood noted that "the appeals process for this case has not even concluded yet, as Free Press and allies sought and got more time to consider our options at the Supreme Court."
"Today's FCC order doesn't impact either our ability to press the case there or our strategic considerations about whether to do so," he added. "It's little more than a premature housekeeping step, with Brendan Carr deciding to get out ahead of the Supreme Court in ways that someone with so-called regulatory humility might typically avoid."
The fight for net neutrality has been strongly influenced by Trump's time in office. During his first term, the FCC—led by the president's first chair, Ajit Pai—repealed the Obama administration's policies. Under former President Joe Biden, the agency voted to restore the rules, sparking a fresh legal battle with ISPs, which led to the appellate court's decision earlier this year.
Just like Tom Paine, and until the very end, Bob saw hope in the people who were rising up and demanding a future defined by their humanity, as opposed to corporate power.
Bob McChesney, who died on Tuesday at the age of 72, first introduced himself to me almost 30 years ago, on the set of a public television news program in Madison, Wisconsin. Bob was a distinguished University of Wisconsin professor who was gaining an international reputation for his groundbreaking analysis of the threat to democracy posed by corporate control of media. Raising his arguments in books, speeches, and frequent C-Span appearances, he was well on his way to becoming one of the great public intellectuals of his time. I was a young newspaper editor who had earned a slim measure of recognition for my advocacy on behalf of investigative journalism and press freedom.
The program was framed as a debate about the future of journalism. Bob was positioned as the doomsayer, warning about how media consolidation was killing journalism. I was expected to counter that the future was actually bright. As it turned out, neither of us wanted to follow the script. Instead of arguing, we both agreed that profit-obsessed corporations were destroying American journalism, and that this destruction would pose an ever more serious threat to American democracy.
It wasn’t a particularly satisfying exchange for our hosts that evening, but it was the beginning of a collaboration that would span three decades. Bob and I cowrote half a dozen books and dozens of articles, joined Bill Moyers for a series of PBS interviews that would examine threats to journalism and democracy, and did our best, with more allies than we could have imagined in those early days, to stir up a reform movement that recognized the crisis and endeavored to set the stage for media that serves people rather than corporate bottom lines.
Bob, with his remarkable intellect and even more remarkable capacity for communicating his vision of a media that served citizens rather than corporations, was always the driving force. His research and his insatiable curiosity helped him to see the future more clearly than any scholar of his generation, with such precision that Moyers would compare him to both Tom Paine and Paul Revere. As new political and societal challenges arose in an ever more chaotic moment for America and the world, Bob explained how they should be understood as fresh manifestations of an ancient danger: the concentration of power—in this case, the power of the media, in the hands of old-media CEOs and new tech oligarchs, all of whom cared more about commercial and entertainment strategies than democratic and social values.
Bob, with his remarkable intellect and even more remarkable capacity for communicating his vision of a media that served citizens rather than corporations, was always the driving force.
Bob took the “public” part of “public intellectual” seriously. You knew he wanted to swing into action when he’d say, “We need to put our heads together…” That was his call to write another book, organize another national conference on media reform, or rally another movement to defend the speak-truth-to-power journalism that the founders of the American experiment understood as the only sure footing for representative democracy.
Bob kept issuing the call, even as a series of health challenges slowed him down. He was still doing so a few days before his death following a year-long fight with cancer. His was a life fulfilled in the best sense of the word. He died a happy man, holding the hand of his beloved wife, Inger Stole, and reflecting on time spent with his daughters, Amy and Lucy.
Our last conversations recalled friends and colleagues who had answered his calls to save journalism and renew our democracy: Craig Aaron, Victor Pickard, Josh Silver, Kimberly Longey, Russell Newman, Derek Turner, Ben Scott, Joe Torres, Tim Karr, Matt Wood, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Michael Copps, Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and too many others to name. Bob loved scholarship, loved activism, and loved collaborating with people who made connections between the two—sharing writing credits with former students at UW-Madison and later at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, working with unions of media workers and, perhaps above all, strategizing with the team at Free Press, the media reform group he co-founded in 2003 to advocate for diversity in ownership, robust pubic media, net neutrality and always, always, democracy. Bob was frustrated by the oligarchical overreach now on display in the Washington of Donald Trump and Elon Musk—a development he had predicted with eerie accuracy. Yet he remained undaunted to the end, still spinning out fresh ideas for upending corporate control of media, getting Big Money out of politics, and ushering in a new era of freewheeling debate and popular democracy.
That was the essence of Robert Waterman McChesney. He was a globally respected communications scholar who was wholly welcome in the halls of academia, yet he was never satisfied working within an ivory tower. He was a rigorous researcher into the worst abuse of corporate and political establishments. Yet he refused to surrender his faith in the ability of people-powered movements to upend monarchs and oligarchs and, in the words of Tom Paine, “begin the world over again.”
Bob regarded Paine—the immigrant pamphleteer who rallied the people of his adopted country to dismiss King George III and the colonial enterprise, and who spent the rest of his life demanding that this new United States live up to the egalitarian promise of liberty and justice for all—as the essential founder of the American project. Like Paine, Bob believed that with information and encouragement, grassroots activists could carry Paine’s legacy forward into the 21st century. Countless people heeded his call.
“Bob McChesney was a brilliant scholar whose ideas and insights reached far beyond the classroom. He opened the eyes of a generation of academics, journalists, politicians, and activists—including mine—to how media structures and policies shape our broader politics and possibilities,” explained Craig Aaron, the co-CEO of Free Press. “While McChesney spent much of his career charting the problems of the media and the critical junctures that created our current crises, he believed fundamentally in the public’s ability to solve those problems and build a media system that serves people’s needs and sustains democracy. His ideas were bold and transformative, and he had little patience for tinkering around the edges. Rather than fighting over Washington’s narrow vision of what was possible, he always said—and Bob loved a good sports metaphor—that we needed to throw the puck down to the other end of the ice.”
Bob examined the relationship between media and democracy with scholarly seriousness. Yet he coupled that seriousness with a penchant not just for sports metaphors and references to rock-and-roll songs but spot-on cinematic analogies, which invited Americans to recognize the crisis. Speaking to Moyers about how America’s media policies were forged behind closed doors in Washington, by lobbyists and politicians, Bob succintly defined that process: “Pure corruption. This is really where Big Money crowds everything else out. The way to understand how policymakers make media in this country [is to watch] a great movie: The Godfather: Part II. There’s a scene early in the movie where all the American gangsters are on top of a hotel roof in Havana. It’s a classic scene featuring Hyman Roth and Michael Corleone. They’ve got a cake being wheeled out to them. And Hyman Roth is cutting up slices of the cake. The cake’s got the outline of Cuba on it, and they’re giving each gangster a slice of Cuba. And while he’s doing this, Hyman Roth’s [talking about how they can work with government to carve up Cuba in ways that make them all rich]. That’s how media policy is made in the United States.”
The accessibility of his speech—the way it turned something as potentially obscure as communications policy into a readily understandable issue—was Bob’s genius. He wanted to upend the money power and tip the balance toward systems that would empower working-class people—as opposed to billionaires—to shape the future of media: with strategies for giving citizens democracy vouchers that they could use to support independent media, and a host of other remedies. Like his friend Bernie Sanders, Bob believed it essential to have a media free enough from corporate influence to speak truth to economic and political power, boldly critique the excesses of capitalism, and raise the alarm against creeping oligarchy.
The accessibility of his speech—the way it turned something as potentially obscure as communications policy into a readily understandable issue—was Bob’s genius.
This was the premise that underpinned an academic career that saw Bob author or co-author almost 30 books—including the groundbreaking Rich Media, Poor Democracy, his 1999 manifesto on how the decay of journalism would lead to a collapse of democratic norms, and 2013’s Digital Disconnect, his essential assessment of the danger of allowing Silicon Valley billionaires to define online communications. Many of the same themes ran through examinations of the shuttering of newspapers by corporate conglomerates that left communities as news deserts, of the destructive influence of political advertising on the national discourse, and of the failure of political and media elites to bring citizens into debates about automation, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. Noam Chomsky, whose own work on the media’s manufacturing of consent had profoundly influenced Bob’s scholarship (along with that of Ben Bagdikian, the journalist who wrote The Media Democracy), became Bob’s most ardent champion. “Robert McChesney’s work has been of extraordinary importance,” explained Chomsky. “It should be read with care and concern by people who care about freedom and basic rights.”
Bob’s research—and the books, lectures and activism that extended from it—earned him Harvard’s Goldsmith Book Prize, the Kappa Tau Alpha Research Award, the Newspaper Guild’s Herbert Block Freedom Award (for “having done more for press freedom than anyone”), and the International Communications Association’s C. Edwin Baker Award for the Advancement of Scholarship on Media, Markets and Democracy. It also gained him a hearing from thoughtful members of Congress, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission. Even if they did not always follow his advice, progressive officials recognized the wisdom of his analysis and incorporated it into their work. That’s one of the reasons why, in 2009, Utne Reader named Bob as one of “50 visionaries who are changing your world.” Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, simply referred to Bob as “the conscience of the media in America.”
Bob’s last words to me, though they were a bit more labored due to his illness, were a repeat of his constant call to action: “Let’s put our heads together…”
Lewis wrote those words the better part of two decades ago. Bob remained that conscience, even as “media deserts” spread their arid path across America, as disinformation and misinformation overwhelmed the Internet, as propagandistic advertising warped our politics and as democratic expectations were undermined. It was all as he had predicted. But he was not inclined toward “I told you so” rejoinders.
Rather, Bob kept the faith that popular movements would push back against the decay, and the chaos, just as they had in the Progressive Era, the New Deal years, and the 1960s. “You’ve got to look in the mirror and understand that, if you act like change for the better is impossible, you guarantee it will be impossible,” he would say. “That’s the one decision each individual faces.”
Bob looked in that mirror confidently and courageously throughout a life of scholarship and activism. Some of our last conversations were about the huge crowds Bernie Sanders was attracting for his “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, and the thousands of Americans who have been showing up to challenge Republican members of Congress at town hall meetings. Just like Tom Paine, Bob saw fresh hope in the people who were rising up and demanding a future defined by their humanity, as opposed to corporate power. This might, he suggested, be the opening for a new surge in activism for journalism and democracy, a surge that might “begin the world over again.”
Bob’s last words to me, though they were a bit more labored due to his illness, were a repeat of his constant call to action: “Let’s put our heads together…” In other words, let’s make a plan. Let’s do something. That was his charge to those of us who cherished Bob McChesney’s mission and his spirit. We honor him best by accepting it.
The powerful telecom industry did what they always do when the FCC does anything good or important on behalf of consumer: They sued to overturn the rules.
Happy New Year to everyone but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
On Thursday, this federal court in Cincinnati threw out the Federal Communication Commission’s Net Neutrality rules, rejecting the agency’s authority to protect broadband consumers and handing phone and cable companies a major victory just weeks before the Trump administration returns to power.
The ruling against the FCC by three Republican judges isn’t shocking, but their reasoning is shoddy, a mish-mash of tired industry claims paired with a willful misrepresentation of how the internet actually works.
As Matt Wood, an experienced telecommunications attorney and my colleague at Free Press, explains: “Beyond being a disappointing outcome, the 6th Circuit’s opinion is just plainly wrong at every level of analysis. The decision missed the point on everything from its granular textual analysis and understanding of the broader statutory context, to the court’s view of the legislative and agency history, all the way to its conception of Congress’s overarching policy concerns.”
Our job now is to channel the growing outrage over this appalling decision into the long-term changes we need to keep the internet safe, reliable, accessible, affordable and free from unlawful discrimination.
Under the leadership of Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, the FCC moved in April 2024 to restore Net Neutrality and the essential consumer protections that rest under Title II of the Communications Act, which had been gutted under the first Trump administration. This was an all-too-rare example in Washington of a government agency doing what it’s supposed to do: Listening to the public and taking their side against the powerful companies that for far too long have captured and called the shots in D.C.
And the phone and cable industry did what they always do when the FCC does anything good or important: They sued to overturn the rules.
This time, however, the lawyers for the biggest phone and cable companies had two things working in their favor. First, they got lucky: They won the forum-shopping lottery and got their case moved outside of Washington, D.C., where previous rounds of the Net Neutrality fight had been decided.
Second, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling in June in the Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo case that overturned the so-called Chevrondoctrine that gave deference to expert agencies in complex matters like environmental and telecommunications regulations.
Unfortunately, the lawyers representing massive companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon found an eager audience in Cincinnati for their debunked arguments.
Despite extensive legal and economic analysis provided by Free Press and our allies in the case and at oral arguments in October, the court ruled against the FCC and deemed internet access to be an “information service” largely free from FCC oversight.
In a post-Chevron world where courts no longer have to defer to expert agencies, we’ve replaced years of evidence and argument with revelations like this from Judge Griffin: “The existence of a fact or thought in one’s mind is not ‘information’ like 0s and 1s used by computers.”
In the short term, this decision will let the incoming Trump FCC abdicate its responsibility to protect internet users so it can focus on its new priority of threatening TV broadcasters and social-media sites to carry more pro-Trump views.
I’ll spare you the rest. This court’s warped decision scraps the common-sense rules the FCC restored in April. The result is that throughout most of the country, the most essential communications service of this century will be operating without any real government oversight, with no one to step in when companies rip you off or slow down your service.
This ruling is far out of step with the views of the American public, who overwhelmingly support real Net Neutrality and despise the cable companies. They’re tired of paying too much, and they hate being spied on when they surf (or talk, thanks Siri). Now they’ll have even less recourse to deal with unscrupulous and abusive business practices.
Incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr and his old boss Ajit Pai, who’s part of the Trump transition team, are crowing everywhere about the decision and cheering this strike against “regulatory overreach.” Of course, Carr and his ilk have never been interested in protecting the public interest, only private profits.
In the short term, this decision will let the incoming Trump FCC abdicate its responsibility to protect internet users so it can focus on its new priority of threatening TV broadcasters and social-media sites to carry more pro-Trump views. The hypocrisy of crushing light-touch regulations while aggressively pursuing government censorship is something to behold.
In the weeks ahead, the FCC, as well as Free Press and the other parties who intervened in the case, will consider our legal options and decide whether to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. In Congress, we’ll start laying the groundwork for a future bill that restores Net Neutrality and FCC authority. Meanwhile, we’ll look to the states to hold the line, with laws like California’s strong Net Neutrality regulations thankfully still on the books.
Our job now is to channel the growing outrage over this appalling decision into the long-term changes we need to keep the internet safe, reliable, accessible, affordable and free from unlawful discrimination.
It may have gotten harder, but the fight for the free and open internet is far from over.
The ruling creates a "dangerous regulatory gap that leaves consumers vulnerable and gives broadband providers unchecked power over Americans’ internet access," said one advocate.
Citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision that stripped federal agencies of their regulatory powers, an all-Republican panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on Thursday ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to reinstate net neutrality rules.
The panel ruled that broadband is an "information service" instead of a "telecommunications service," which is more heavily regulated under the Communications Act, and said the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit telecommunications companies from blocking or throttling internet content and creating "fast lanes" for certain web companies that pay a fee.
Last April the FCC voted to reinstate net neutrality rules, which were first introduced under the Obama administration but were repealed by former Republican FCC Chair Ajit Pai, who was appointed by President-elect Donald Trump.
The ruling cited by the 6th Circuit panel was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine last year. Under the decades-old legal precedent, judges have typically deferred to federal agencies' reasonable interpretation of a law if Congress has not specifically addressed an issue.
"Applying Loper Bright means we can end the FCC's vacillations" between imposing and repealing net neutrality rules, said the judges on Thursday.
— (@)
The ruling serves as "a reminder that agencies are going to be neutered across any and all industries," said one observer.
John Bergmayer, legal director for the free expression and digital rights group Public Knowledge, said that by "rejecting the FCC's authority to classify broadband as a telecommunications service, the court has ignored decades of precedent and fundamentally misunderstood both the technical realities of how broadband works and Congress' clear intent in the Communications Act."
The ruling creates a "dangerous regulatory gap that leaves consumers vulnerable and gives broadband providers unchecked power over Americans’ internet access," added Bergmayer. The decision could harm the FCC's ability to protect against everything from broadband privacy violations to threats to universal service programs for low-income and rural households.
Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel for another media justice group, Free Press, said the ruling was "just plainly wrong at every level of analysis."
"In April, the FCC issued an order that properly restored the agency's congressionally granted oversight authority to protect people from any [internet service provider] discrimination and manipulation. That commonsense FCC order tried to ensure that the companies providing America with the essential communications service of this century don't get to operate free from any real oversight," said Wood.
Companies and industry groups that sued over the regulations, including the Ohio Telecom Association, "baselessly claim that any regulation will hurt their bottom line," Wood added. "Treating broadband like a common-carrier service does nothing to dampen or dissuade private investment in this crucial infrastructure. And the question for any court interpreting the Communications Act must be what is in the public's best interest, not just one industry sector's financial interests."
The groups, along with FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, called on Congress to take legislative action to protect internet users and small web businesses from discrimination.
"Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an internet that is fast, open, and fair. With this decision it is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take up the charge for net neutrality, and put open internet principles in federal law," Rosenworcel said.
Congress must "clarify the FCC's authority—and responsibility—to protect the Open Internet and broadband users," said Bergmayer.
Bergmayer also noted that the ruling leaves states' ability to enforce their own net neutrality laws in place, and said the group "will continue to look to states and local governments to help lead on broadband policy."
