SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
net neutrality
Trump Taps Project 2025 Co-Author Who Cozied Up to Musk to Lead FCC
"For more than a year now Carr has been auditioning for this job," said one critic. "His groveling is now being rewarded with a promotion, and it's the American public who will pay a heavy price."
Nov 18, 2024
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump claimed on Sunday that his nomination of Brendan Carr to chair the Federal Communications Commission would elevate "a warrior for free speech," but one veteran journalist warned the selection of Carr is a "key step in Trump's assault on the free press," while others expressed concerns about the future of net neutrality and censorship on social media platforms.
A portion of Project 2025—the far-right policy document that Trump repeatedly said he had nothing to do with—was authored by Carr, who has been an FCC commissioner since 2017.
Carr wrote in Project 2025 about "reining in Big Tech" and called for Section 230 of the Communication Act to be limited in order to stop what conservatives have called discrimination against right-wing views by Facebook, Google, and other Silicon Valley giants. Carr was the only current government official to co-author Project 2025.
Section 230 affirms that online platforms are not the "publishers" of users' content and are permitted to use content moderation "in good faith" as they see fit, to limit content that is violent, bigoted, or otherwise objectionable.
The U.S. Supreme Court this year affirmed in Netchoice v. Paxton that content moderation is protected by the First Amendment, but both Carr and Trump have decried Section 230 as censoring conservative views.
"When people tell you what they plan to do, you should believe them. Brendan Carr has clearly stated that he plans to attack Section 230 and force online platforms to carry sludge," said Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of progressive tech coaltion Chamber of Progress. "That's why Democrats need to defend Section 230, which protects content moderation and keeps the Internet from becoming a cesspool."
Last week, Carr wrote to tech companies including Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Apple, accusing them of silencing conservatives by partnering with NewsGuard, which rates the credibility of news websites, and calling the companies a "censorship cartel."
As an FCC commissioner, said City University of New York journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, Carr "is already trying to force platforms to carry right-wing propaganda."
Meanwhile this is terrible news for the internet and freedom of expression. Carr is already trying to force platforms to carry right-wing propaganda. Compelled speech is not free speech. Trump picks Brendan Carr as FCC chairman www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2...
[image or embed]
— Jeff (Gutenberg Parenthesis) Jarvis (@jeffjarvis.bsky.social) November 18, 2024 at 7:20 AM
Carr also called for social media platform TikTok to be banned in the U.S. if it does not cut ties with its China-based parent company, ByteDance.
TikTok sued the U.S. government earlier this year over the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversaries Act, which threatens the company with a ban unless ByteDance sells the platform.
Supporters of net neutrality rules, the Obama-era regulations that stop internet service providers from blocking or throttling content and creating "fast lanes" for web companies that pay a fee, condemned Carr's nomination, saying the commissioner will "kill" the regulations that the Biden FCC has worked to revive.
"He's committed to ending net neutrality and undermining the FCC's ability to hold accountable companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon for abusing internet users," said Craig Aaron, co-CEO of public advocacy group Free Press.
Carr's nomination was announced two weeks after the commissioner claimed on social media that Vice President Kamala Harris' appearance on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" was "a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC's Equal Time rule."
The FCC's equal time guidelines do not require networks to "provide opposing candidates with programs identical to the initiating candidate." A spokesperson for the commission said in a statement after Carr's complaint that "the FCC has not made any determination regarding political programming rules."
The FCC is barred from punishing TV networks for their editorial decisions in most cases, but with Trump having called on the commission to strip companies like NBC and CBS of their licenses because of what he views as unfair coverage of him, advocates expressed concern that Carr could use his position to pressure and threaten networks.
"Be wary of any reporting that regurgitates Trump's claim that Brendan Carr is a 'warrior for Free Speech,'" said Tim Karr, senior director of strategy and communications for Free Press. "He's actually the opposite, willing to use the FCC to go after TV broadcasters that are 'unfair' to Trump, or to punish fact-checkers, like NewsGuard, that vet Trump's many false claims."
Carr has aligned himself with billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who spent nearly $120 million to support Trump's presidential campaign. The commissioner dissented in 2022 when the FCC revoked an $885 million grant that had been given to Starlink, Musk's satellite internet provider; the Democratic-led FCC said Starlink didn't meet the requirements for the commission's Digital Rural Opportunity Fund.
"Carr wants to use his perch to funnel money to companies run by Trump cronies like Elon Musk, while punishing opponents by increasing their fees or ending subsidies and contracts," said Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future. "In short, Carr plans to use the full weight of the FCC to help billionaires and authoritarians while abandoning the agency's actual mission of protecting the public interest."
Carr, said Aaron, "has been campaigning for this job with promises to do the bidding of Donald Trump and Elon Musk," and "got this job because he will carry out Trump and Musk's personal vendettas."
"While styling himself as a free-speech champion, Carr refused to stand up when Trump threatened to take away the broadcast licenses of TV stations for daring to fact check him during the campaign," said Aaron. "This alone should be disqualifying. The public needs a watchdog looking out for them at this independent agency, not an attack dog for Trump and Musk."
"His close relationships with far-right zealots and his craven cozying up to the CEOs he's supposed to be regulating tell you everything about the kind of FCC chairman he will be," he added. "For more than a year now Carr has been auditioning for this job, desperate to gain Trump's attention and show how he's willing to bend the rules and twist the law to serve this administration. His groveling is now being rewarded with a promotion, and it's the American public who will pay a heavy price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unacceptable': Court Blocks Net Neutrality Rules During Legal Battle
"Today's ruling is a setback, but a temporary one," said one campaigner. "The nation's communications regulator must be able to oversee the nation’s communications infrastructure."
Aug 01, 2024
Net neutrality advocates on Thursday sharply condemned a U.S. appellate court decision blocking implementation of the Biden administration's broadband policy while a legal challenge launched by the telecommunications industry moves forward.
Federal Communications Commission Chair Jessica Rosenworcel joined with Commissioners Anna Gomez and Geoffrey Starks in April to reclassify broadband as a public service under Title II of the Communications Act—undoing damage done during the Trump administration.
Internet service providers (ISPs) are fighting to stop the FCC's order. After temporarily delaying the rules last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit just granted a stay. Oral arguments aren't expected until October or November.
"The 6th Circuit's stay will leave Americans without critical net neutrality protections and leave the Federal Communications Commission without its rightful authority over broadband," warned U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in a joint statement Thursday.
"We need net neutrality to protect the free and open internet and ensure that internet gatekeepers cannot control what we see, who we talk with, and how we communicate online."
"That is unacceptable," added the senators, who have led the fight for reviving net neutrality rules in Congress. "We need net neutrality to protect the free and open internet and ensure that internet gatekeepers cannot control what we see, who we talk with, and how we communicate online."
Advocacy groups were similarly critical. John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, said that "it is unfortunate that the court granted the ISPs' request for a stay of the FCC's net neutrality rules. These rules would bar broadband providers from throttling connection speeds, blocking websites, and discriminating in favor of preferred internet traffic."
"Millions of Americans have expressed support for these rules by submitting comments with the FCC urging the agency to enact these protections," he noted. "Consumers need net neutrality rules as well as the other consumer benefits provided by the FCC's recognition that broadband is a 'telecommunications' service, including online privacy, public safety and national security, and affordable, competitive broadband service."
"Despite this court's action, we remain confident that the FCC's rules—and classification of broadband as a telecommunication service under Title II of the Communications Act—will ultimately be upheld, just as they were before—or that Congress will step in to reinstate these popular and necessary protections," Bergmayer added.
Free Press vice president of policy and general counsel Matt Wood also characterized the stay as unfortunate but stressed that "we believe that the litigation to follow will dispel these unfounded phone-and cable-company arguments about Title II's supposed harms and about the commission's authority to classify broadband providers properly under the statute."
"Industry lobbyists and other net neutrality opponents have argued, loudly but cynically, that the Trump-era repeal somehow spurred broadband deployment and speed increases, claiming that the rules' presence impairs those upgrades. This is nonsense, as Free Press has shown time and time again by examining the companies' own financial statements and investor briefings," he highlighted. "Today's order unfortunately accepts the false premise that the FCC's rules prevent broadband providers from rolling out new products. ISPs make such claims only in court; they never make them to their investors."
"Today's ruling is a setback, but a temporary one. The nation's communications regulator must be able to oversee the nation’s communications infrastructure," Wood continued. "While we hit a procedural hurdle today, Free Press is determined to see the FCC's decision go into effect. The 6th Circuit will still need to evaluate the ISPs' and FCC's arguments in full when it reviews the case on the merits. We're confident that we will ultimately prevail in this case, even in the wake of this disappointing outcome and even in light of recent Supreme Court decisions aimed at weakening federal agencies' oversight."
Rosenworcel was also determined to defend the FCC's decision, declaring Thursday that "the American public wants an internet that is fast, open, and fair. Today's decision by the 6th Circuit is a setback but we will not give up the fight for net neutrality."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Everyone Should Celebrate': FCC Restores Net Neutrality Rules
"Today marks the last day that internet service providers can continue to put profit over people," said one advocate.
Apr 25, 2024
Open internet advocates on Thursday applauded the Federal Communications Commission's long-anticipated vote to revive net neutrality rules and reestablish FCC oversight of broadband.
The 3-2 vote along party lines to reclassify broadband as a public service under Title II of the Communications Act came seven months after FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel announced the push in the wake of the U.S. Senate confirming Commissioner Anna Gomez.
Commissioner Geoffrey Starks joined Rosenworcel and Gomez to launch the rulemaking process last year and finalize the policy change on Thursday. Commissioner Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington both aligned with the powerful telecom industry by opposing the effort to prevent internet service providers from blocking, throttling, or engaging in paid prioritization of lawful online content.
Demand Progress Education Fund senior campaigner Joey DeFrancesco said the revival "has been desperately needed" since former FCC Chair Ajit Pai—an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump—led the "disastrous decision" in 2017 to gut a 2015 agency policy codifying the principle that has been foundational to the internet since its inception.
"Internet access is not a luxury, but a necessity to participate in society and survive in our modern economy," DeFrancesco stressed. "The FCC's new rule will ensure the commission has the full ability to expand broadband and the authority to ensure access to an open internet."
"The FCC's vote today returns the internet to the American people."
Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron declared that "everyone should celebrate today's FCC vote."
"Public support for net neutrality is overwhelming, and people understand why we need a federal watchdog to protect everyone's access to the most essential communications platform of our time," he noted. "The FCC heard the outcry and did its job: delivering on promises to stand with internet users and against big telecom companies and their trade groups, which have spent untold millions of dollars to spread lies about net neutrality and thwart any oversight or regulation."
Aaron praised Rosenworcel and her staff for leading the restoration effort, as well as Starks and Gomez for working with her to reverse the Trump FCC's move and ensure "that the agency can once again protect internet users whenever big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, and Verizon attempt to harm them."
"Big cable and phone companies won't be able to pick and choose what any of us can say or see online. Net neutrality is a guarantee that these companies will carry our data across the internet without undue interference or unreasonable discrimination," he emphasized. "This is what democracy should look like: Public servants responding to public sentiment, taking steps to protect just and reasonable services and free expression, and showing that the government is capable of defending the public interest."
Michael Copps, a former FCC commissioner and current Common Cause special adviser, was similarly enthusiastic, saying that "if I weren't out of the country today, I would be personally at the FCC jumping up and down, saluting the majority for reinstituting the network neutrality rules that were so foolishly eliminated by the previous commission."
"Our communications technologies are evolving so swiftly, affecting so many important aspects of our individual lives, that they must be available to all of us on a nondiscriminatory basis. And they must advance the public interest, protecting consumers, fostering competition, and providing us all the news and information we need as we fight to maintain our democracy," he continued. "We still have much to do; but today, let's celebrate a huge step forward."
The vote notably comes during an election year—and as Democratic President Joe Biden, a net neutrality supporter, is gearing up for a November rematch against Trump.
"The internet is crucial to civic engagement in the United States today. It functions as a virtual public square where social justice movements organize and garner support," said Common Cause's Ishan Mehta. "The FCC's vote today returns the internet to the American people."
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, also piled on the praise, proclaiming that "today marks the last day that internet service providers can continue to put profit over people."
"We are thrilled that the FCC now has the authority it needs to protect consumers, promote the exercise of First Amendment rights online, and ensure that everyone has access to high-quality, affordable internet," she said. "However, we urge the commission not to exercise its authority to preempt consistent state laws that grant consumers additional protections."
John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, also celebrated the vote while stressing that the commission's work is far from over. In addition to warning of court fights to come, he said that "broadband providers will continue attempting to rebrand their old plans for internet fast and slow lanes, hoping to sneak them through."
"The FCC will need to diligently enforce its rules," Bergmayer argued, "including clarifying that discrimination in favor of certain apps or categories of traffic 'impairs' and 'degrades' traffic that is left in the slow lane, and that broadband providers cannot simply take apps that people use on the internet every day and package them as a separate 'nonbroadband' service."
"The FCC must also ensure that practices that are not expressly prohibited but still unreasonably interfere with the ability of end users to freely use the internet, or of edge providers to freely compete, are disallowed," he added. "These practices include discriminatory zero-rating and network interconnection practices."
Like Leventoff, he also recognized the vital role of states with stricter policies, saying that those "with excellent net neutrality and broadband consumer protection statutes, like California, can be a nationwide model for other states and the FCC to adopt to strengthen their own rules."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular