The open Internet is in jeopardy—again.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down the Biden administration’s effort to reinstate net neutrality rules, blocking the FCC’s authority to reclassify broadband as a Title II utility. The decision was heavily influenced by the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ruling in 2024, which severely curtailed the ability of federal agencies like the FCC to interpret their own regulatory mandates.
While the legal technicalities may seem complex, the implications of this ruling are straightforward—and dire. This decision hands control of the Internet back to ISPs, trusting the same companies that fought tooth and nail against net neutrality to regulate themselves. It’s a move rooted in the belief that the free market will naturally self-correct. But history has shown us time and again that when left unchecked, ISPs consistently prioritize their bottom line over the public good.
The Internet thrives because of net neutrality—it’s what ensures that consumers, startups, and small businesses operate on a level playing field. Without it, the consequences could be catastrophic for innovation, competition, and democracy itself.
The Fragile Legacy of Net Neutrality
The fight for net neutrality is not new, and it’s certainly not over. In 2015, the FCC adopted Title II regulations to classify broadband as a utility, ensuring that ISPs could not throttle, block, or prioritize certain Internet traffic. At the time, this was seen as a landmark victory for consumers and a decisive step toward preserving the open Internet. In my open letter supporting the rules, I wrote that net neutrality wasn’t just a technical safeguard—it was the foundation of a fair and equal Internet.
But that foundation was shattered in 2017 when the FCC, under Ajit Pai, repealed those protections. Pai’s dismissal of net neutrality was justified with a dubious claim: that market forces would ensure ISPs wouldn’t abuse their newfound power. Critics like myself, argued that this was both naive and dangerous. ISPs now had free rein to create “fast lanes” for companies that could pay and slow lanes for everyone else. It was a step backward that threatened the very essence of the Internet.
Then, in 2024, there was a glimmer of hope. The FCC, empowered by a shift in political leadership, voted to reinstate net neutrality. I called it a win for consumers and democracy. But as we’ve now seen, that victory was short-lived. The courts have stripped the FCC of its authority, leaving net neutrality on life support and putting the open Internet’s future at risk.
The Myth of Free Market Regulation
Proponents of deregulation have long claimed that government oversight isn’t necessary because the free market will police itself. ISPs, they argue, would never throttle content or prioritize certain services because it would alienate customers. Or, at the very least, the inherent nature of the free market would result in a rival ISP offering an un-throttled experience, thereby providing competition and consumer choice. This argument is disingenuous at best.
We’ve seen what happens when ISPs are left to their own devices. They exploit their position as gatekeepers to the Internet, engaging in practices that undermine the principles of net neutrality. For example, T-Mobile’s zero-rating programs in 2016 demonstrated how ISPs could subtly prioritize certain services over others, distorting competition without outright violating the letter of the law.
The reality is that ISPs have a proven track record of doing the wrong thing when oversight is removed. They’re not motivated by altruism or public service—they’re motivated by profit. That is not unique to Internet service—it is a defining feature of corporations and capitalism. And without regulations to hold them accountable, those profits come at the expense of consumers and innovation.
What’s at Stake?
The consequences of abandoning net neutrality aren’t hypothetical. Without these protections, ISPs gain unchecked power to shape the Internet to their liking. They can prioritize their own services, block competitors, or charge extra fees for access to popular sites and applications. Startups and small businesses—the lifeblood of innovation—could be priced out of the market, unable to compete with larger companies that can afford to pay for premium access.
For consumers, the cost is both financial and societal. Imagine an Internet where basic services are bundled and sold at a premium or where access to information depends on your ability to pay. It’s not just a dystopian vision; it’s a likely outcome without net neutrality.
Even more troubling is the impact on democracy. The Internet has always been a platform for free expression and the free flow of ideas. Stripping away net neutrality threatens to create a tiered Internet where only the wealthiest voices are heard, undermining the democratic values that depend on an informed and engaged citizenry.
What Comes Next?
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling has left a regulatory vacuum, and the responsibility now falls to Congress to pass legislation that codifies net neutrality protections. But given the current political landscape, this is easier said than done. The chances of bipartisan agreement on an issue as contentious as net neutrality are slim, and in the meantime, ISPs are free to operate without meaningful restrictions.
Some states, like California, have enacted their own net neutrality laws, but this patchwork approach creates its own set of challenges. A fragmented regulatory landscape could lead to inconsistent protections and a host of legal battles as ISPs push back against state-level rules.
Last Stand for the Open Internet
When the FCC finally restored the guardrails last year, I called net neutrality “a win for democracy” because it ensured that the Internet remained open, fair, and accessible to everyone. Now, that vision is under threat.
We cannot rely on ISPs (or any publicly-traded corporations, really) to do the right thing—they’ve proven time and again that they won’t. The free market will not self-regulate, and without government oversight, the Internet as we know it will be fundamentally altered, becoming a tool for corporate profit rather than a platform for innovation and equality.
The question we face is simple: Do we want an Internet that serves the public, or are we willing to gamble its future on the false promise of free market regulation? The time to act is now, before we lose the open Internet for good.
