Recent developments in US tech policy have halted the return of net neutrality rules and put the looming TikTok ban on pause, thereby raising significant questions about internet governance, corporate power, and digital rights.
What Is Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality, the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all data equally, ensures that ISPs cannot prioritise, throttle, or block access to specific websites or online services based on their content, source, or payment arrangements. It is designed to maintain an open and fair internet, where all users and businesses have equal access to information and services, regardless of their size or resources.
A Saga of Reversals
Although net neutrality has been a cornerstone of digital fairness debates, its history in the US to date has unfortunately been marked by policy reversals tied to political administrations. For example, under the Obama administration, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) classified ISPs as telecommunications services, thereby subjecting them to stringent neutrality rules. This decision was then reversed under Trump-era FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who championed deregulation. Next, the Biden administration attempted to reinstate neutrality rules, but recent judicial developments have derailed these efforts.
What’s Happened Now?
On 2 January 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld its stay on the FCC’s Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order. The court essentially ruled that ISPs are classified as ‘information services’, thereby exempting them from net neutrality regulations. The decision leaned heavily on the 2024 Supreme Court ruling ending the Chevron deference principle, which previously required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws. The Sixth Circuit’s decision concluded that the FCC lacked statutory authority to reimpose neutrality rules.
“We hold that Broadband Internet Service Providers offer only an ‘information service,’ and therefore, the FCC lacks the statutory authority to impose its desired net-neutrality policies,” stated the court order. This effectively nullifies the FCC’s authority to enforce net neutrality under current legislation.
Implications for Internet Users and Businesses
The absence of net neutrality rules ushers in an unregulated internet landscape. It means that ISPs can now legally prioritise or throttle specific traffic, potentially leading to a tiered internet where services like video streaming or cloud computing are accessible only to those who can pay premium fees. For businesses, particularly small enterprises, this raises concerns about equitable access to online resources, such as reliable video conferencing platforms for remote work or affordable e-commerce tools essential for reaching customers. The disparity could stifle innovation and hinder the competitiveness of smaller players.
The latest judgment also means that larger corporations with deep pockets may find it easier to secure prioritised bandwidth for their services, leaving smaller firms struggling to compete. Also, consumers could face higher costs for accessing content and services without the assurance of unbiased treatment by ISPs. Critics argue that the lack of neutrality poses a risk to free speech, as ISPs gain more control over the flow of information.
Brendan Carr To Champion Deregulation (and More ISP Freedom)
Brendan Carr is the person set to assume the role of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair (replacing Jessica Rosenworcel) on 20 January 2025, coinciding with President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. In the US, Mr Carr is known for his strong support of market-driven approaches to internet regulation. He is also known for consistently arguing that innovation and progress are best achieved through competition and minimal government intervention, rather than through federal regulations like net neutrality. It seems likely, therefore, that under his leadership, the FCC will give ISPs more freedom to manage their networks as they see fit, reinforcing the current administration’s deregulatory agenda.
TikTok Ban in Limbo
At the same time a court has just ruled that ISPs are again exempt from net neutrality regulations, it seems that TikTok still faces a perhaps precarious future in the US. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (set to take effect on 19 January 2025) requires ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, to sell the app or face an outright ban. Proponents of the law cite national security concerns, alleging that TikTok could be used by the Chinese government for data collection or propaganda. However, the issue has become a flashpoint for debates on free speech and economic competition.
Ban Delayed
In what some may see as a surprising move, President-elect Donald Trump has requested that the Supreme Court delay the implementation of the ban. Trump’s lawyers argue that the timing of the ban, coinciding with his inauguration, complicates his ability to negotiate a resolution. The filing notes that Trump has 14.7 million TikTok followers, which he views as critical for political engagement and freedom of expression.
Civil Liberties Groups Have Also Challenged TikTok Ban
It’s also worth noting here that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit organisation dedicated to defending civil liberties in the digital world, has criticised the US government’s case against TikTok in a supporting brief. The EFF argues that the government “has not presented credible evidence of ongoing or imminent harm caused by TikTok.” This is a sentiment echoed by other civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which contend that the government’s claims rely on speculative threats rather than concrete evidence. Both organisations warn that banning TikTok without sufficient justification could set a troubling precedent, potentially undermining free speech and digital rights.
Hearing 10 January
The US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on 10 January, and its decision will likely determine TikTok’s fate in the US. If the court grants a pause, the new administration could explore alternative solutions, such as data localisation or third-party audits, to address security concerns while preserving the app’s availability.
The Broader Implications of Both
The developments in both net neutrality and TikTok’s future could be regarded as a reflection of broader tensions in tech governance. For example, whereas the rollback of neutrality rules highlights the growing influence of corporate interests in shaping internet policy, the TikTok case highlights the complex interplay between US national security, free speech, and global economic competition.
Turning Point?
For consumers and businesses alike, these decisions could represent a turning point. Without neutrality protections, the internet risks becoming a space where access and quality are dictated by financial clout. Also, the TikTok debate raises questions about how governments can balance security concerns with the rights of users and companies in a globalised tech ecosystem.
As the dust settles, the outcomes of these cases will likely influence not only US policy but also the global discourse on digital rights and internet regulation. Both issues serve as reminders of the profound impact legal and political decisions have on the digital lives of billions.
What Does This Mean For Your Business?
The recent rulings on net neutrality and the TikTok ban highlight the evolving and often contentious landscape of internet governance (in the United States). Both cases show the delicate balance policymakers must strike between fostering innovation, protecting national security, and upholding the principles of fairness and free expression.
The decision to block the return of net neutrality appears to signal a significant shift towards a market-driven internet, with ISPs gaining greater autonomy in how they manage their networks. While proponents argue this could spur innovation and competition, critics warn that it risks creating inequities that could disadvantage smaller businesses and marginalised users. The absence of regulation raises the spectre of a tiered internet, where those with financial resources receive preferential access, potentially stifling competition and undermining the democratic ethos of an open web.
Meanwhile, the debate over TikTok highlights the complexity of addressing security concerns in a globalised tech environment. While the app’s Chinese ownership has sparked legitimate fears about data privacy and propaganda, the lack of concrete evidence has raised concerns about overreach and the potential suppression of free speech. Also, President-elect Trump’s intervention introduces a political dimension to the debate, with his own social media presence on TikTok cited as a key consideration. The upcoming Supreme Court decision will be pivotal, not just for TikTok’s future in the US, but for the precedent it sets in handling foreign-owned platforms.
At their core, both cases illuminate the growing tension between corporate and governmental power in the digital age. The rollback of net neutrality highlights the influence of corporate interests on internet policy, while the TikTok ban raises questions about the extent to which governments should intervene in the digital economy. Together, these developments both highlight the profound implications of regulatory decisions on the digital lives of billions.
As these stories unfold, the outcomes will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of internet governance in the US and elsewhere. They serve as a reminder that the policies we adopt today will have far-reaching consequences, influencing not just the accessibility and fairness of the digital landscape but also the broader principles of freedom and equity in the information age.
