Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Net Neutrality News & Roundup
Net Neutrality News & Roundup
Jan 13, 2026 3:56 AM

Yesterday the FCC reclassified Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as a munications service under Title II of the Communications Act, with additional provisions from Title III and Section 706 of the munications Act of 1996. This was done for the purpose of ensuring net neutrality or open internet access, requiring ISPs to treat all data on the internet equally. Notably, yesterday’s Order also includes mobile broadband for the first time as well.

In a press release, the FCC claims,

Together Title II and Section 706 support clear rules of the road, providing the certainty needed for innovators and investors, and petitive choices and freedom demanded by consumers, while not burdening broadband providers with anachronistic utility-style regulations such as rate regulation, tariffs or network sharing requirements.

I have expressed concerns in the past about the smattering of regulations available under Title II, far beyond what would be required for net neutrality. On the surface, the press release would seem to indicate that the recent Order was designed to attempt to prevent those further regulations from being available to the FCC:

Congress requires the FCC to refrain from enforcing — forbear from — provisions of the Communications Act that are not in the public interest. The Order applies some key provisions of Title II, and forbears from most others. Indeed, the Order ensures that some 27 provisions of Title II and over 700 regulations adopted under Title II will not apply to broadband. There is no need for any further proceedings before the forbearance is adopted. The proposed Order would apply fewer sections of Title II than have applied to mobile voice networks for over twenty years. (Italics in original.)

To what extent the Order can ensure that this forbearance will remain in effect is an important and open question to me.

For my part, as I have argued in the past, the net neutrality that was struck down in January 2014 was an effective means for restricting consolidation and ensuring the possibility petition through regulation of the market form, such as by prohibiting discriminatory practices, but not by restricting the details of the market processes, such as by fixing prices or subsidizing production. The closer a market is to petition, the more closely will it reflect equilibrium prices: the place where consumer demand meets producer supply most efficiently, minimizing deadweight loss. Reduced costs for such an modity, neither deflated through subsidies nor inflated through price controls, gives the most benefit to the poor today without promising our long term financial viability as a country for our children by spending more of their future tax dollars today via subsidies, increasing debt and deficits even more. In addition, increased regulation beyond this runs the risk of raising entry costs to petitors, effectively closing the ISP market in favor of those already on the scene, especially the bigger providers.

Thus, the justice of the matter is in the details, and for this reason I find it of paramount importance (1) whether the forbearance of the Order effectively restricts the FCC’s power to regulate market processes and, (2) if so, whether it will remain a permanent fixture of the Order as long as it is in effect. If it is subject to easy revision or not well-written in the first place, we may end up in a few years with something far different from what we got, or seemed to get, yesterday.

That said, I am not the only contributor to the PowerBlog that has written on this question, and our positions seem to fall across the spectrum. For those interested in reading more, I offer the following roundup (from most to least recent):

Joe Carter, “Explainer: What is Net Neutrality?”Dylan Pahman, “Net Neutrality? Yes. Title II? No.”Jacqueline Derks, “Net Neutrality and Religious Advocacy”Dylan Pahman, “Evaluating Net Neutrality via Walter Eucken”Joe Carter, “Explainer: What is Net Neutrality?”Bruce Edward Walker, “Verizon Shareholders Reject Net Neutrality Resolution”Bruce Edward Walker, “ICCR Proxy Resolutions Back Net Neutrality”

The recent press release by the FCC is available here. The full text of the Order has not yet been made available.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Economic turmoil in Zimbabwe
Where in the world would you pay $145,750 for a roll of toilet paper? According to an article in the New York Times, inflation in Zimbabwe is soaring higher than ever — about 900 percent since President Mugabe began seizing land from wealthy landowners in 2000. And inflation is climbing at unparalleled rates. What problems result from such rampant inflation? If inflation is climbing daily and you have $100 one day, it might be worth only $90 the next. People...
Anthony Bradley discusses Duke lacrosse on Fox
Anthony Bradley, a research fellow at the Acton Institute, was interviewed on “Heartland with John Kasich” on Fox News last Saturday. He was talking about the need for a “hero to emerge” from the Duke lacrosse team in the wake of a sexual assault scandal. Bradley emphasizes the need for moral leadership in the United States as a whole and why we should discourage markets from promoting the dehumanization of women. Bradley earned quite a bit of attention after writing...
Religious liberty in Japan
For the past several decades in the United States many parents have gravitated toward one extreme or the other in terms of allowing religion in public schools. It is generally understood these days that our public school system is not a religious organization, and should not promote one religion as a state religion, over others. Of course, this does not mean that morality or other ideas that call on the revelation of religion cannot be taught, but we try to...
Acton scholars on the immigration debate
Two Acton scholars, Andrew Yuengert and Fr. Paul Hartmann, were interviewed on “The World Over” (EWTN Studios) last Friday, April 28, about the Catholic response to immigration rights. Yuengert, author of the Acton monograph “Inhabiting the Land,” emphasizes the dignity of the human person as a foundation for looking at the issues surrounding immigration. Yuengert says that the “right to migrate” is not an absolute right, but to prevent people from assisting immigrants in need is immoral. e because they...
Coercing charity
This section from Reinhold Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics strikes me as quite true: The coercive factors, in distinction to the more purely moral and rational factors, in political relations can never be sharply differentiated and defined. It is not possible to estimate exactly how much a party to a social conflict is influenced by a rational argument or by the threat of force. It is impossible, for instance, to know what proportion...
Clear thinking on immigration
Andrew Yuengert, the author of Inhabiting the Land – The Case for the Right to Migrate, the Acton study on immigration, looks at the current debate and debunks mon misconceptions. “The biggest burdens from immigration are not economic – they are the turmoil caused by the large numbers of illegal immigrants,” Yuengert writes. Read mentary here. ...
Spelling relief II
Jordan pretty well covered the territory in his earlier post on gas prices. But with the silliness from both Republicans and Democrats ongoing, it can’t hurt to suggest two additional sensible treatments of the subject: Thomas Nugent on National Review Online, and Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute on Fox News. ...
Faith-based funding politicizes religion
Rev. Robert A. Sirico looks at the Bush Faith-Based Initiative following the departure of Jim Towey, who headed the office. “I would far rather see a president rally people to give more to charity than rally voters to support government programs that go to religious organizations, and to create incentives and lessen penalties when they do give,” Rev. Sirico writes. Read Rev. mentary here. ...
Religion, economics, and the zoo
Ota Benga Sometimes the spirit of an age prevails with such force that it moves the highest pinnacles of cultural influence to support the grossest indignities. Consider the early 1900s. During this time, the prevailing zeitgeist of Darwinism gave rise to the tragic dehumanization of a Pygmy named Ota Benga. What follows are a few salient points from Cynthia Crossen’s story as published in The Wall Street Journal’s Déjà vu column “How Pygmy Ota Benga Ended Up in Bronx Zoo...
Ecobits
Two quick bits for your Tuesday: – Federal judges on green junkets at your expense? CRC says so! – Is “steady state ecological economics” the answer to environmental and economic woes? [also, a quick thanks to Jordan for inviting me to join the PowerBlog team.] Federal judges on green junkets at your expense? But the three organizations CRC singles out have an agenda that goes beyond education and is the equivalent of lobbying, Kendall contends. FREE, for example, describes itself...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved