Why the Recent Dissolution of Net Neutrality Could Be Very Bad for Your Business

Net neutrality has long been an embattled topic, with rules flipping every few years depending on the opinions of those with influence. Recently, the Federal Communications Commission had its most recent net neutrality policy struck down by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals… in such a way that sets the concept back to square one.

Let’s discuss why this is a particularly dangerous decision, and very well could put small and medium-sized businesses at a distinct disadvantage moving forward.

Understanding Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

In June 2024, the United States Supreme Court passed a ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a case initially between the owners of a small fishing company and the National Marine Fisheries Service. That case concerned the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which establishes catch limits to help prevent overfishing by requiring fishing boats to have an inspector—appointed by the government—onboard all vessels to ensure compliance with catch limits.

The issue effectively came down to the argument that the government lacked the authority to enforce the presence of an inspector, which would cost the fishing company approximately $700 each day. After a district court and a federal appeals court affirmed that NFMS had this authority, the fishing company went to the Supreme Court. With their 6-3 decision, the court struck down the lower courts’ rulings.

This Decision Impacted 40 Years of Precedence

In doing so, the court also struck down the “Chevron deference,” a four-decades-old precedent from Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council case that allowed federal agencies to interpret any gaps in the laws that applied to their areas of expertise. This precedent created a power distribution method between these agencies and the courts. Judges would consider a law to compare how well its intent is communicated in its wording. If the intention was clear, an agency would need to obey the law to the letter.

However, if there were enough leeway in a law to allow for multiple interpretations, the court would defer to what the agency and its teams of experts saw as an appropriate conclusion.

With the ruling passed by the Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, agencies would no longer receive this deference, and the courts once again had the final say in such cases. This threw many considerations into question… including one related to net neutrality.

Fast Forward to Halloween’s Petition

On October 31st, months after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo was settled, the ruling showed how much things changed in Ohio Telecom Association v. Federal Communications Commission. In this petition, the FCC’s Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order was called into question. The U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit heard the arguments, and Judges John K. Bush, Raymond Kethledge, and Richard Allen Griffin ultimately considered Loper Bright v. Raimondo and tossed out the FCC’s rule.

What Does All of This Have to Do With Net Neutrality?

Since 2015, net neutrality has been a contentious topic within the FCC itself, as opinions have shifted with each presidential administration and the changes they have brought. Journalist and social media personality Lisa Remillard (AKA “The News Girl”) shares a concise summary of net neutrality and its tumultuous journey through time.

As Remillard outlines, the court found that the FCC did not have the authority to enforce net neutrality policies because they relied on the Communications Act and its “telecommunications service” provision, and ISPs—Internet Service Providers—should be classified as an “information service” and are thereby not under the FCC’s purview.

As such, federal net neutrality protections are out, leaving only what protections and regulations different states have put in… and because of how these protections were removed, it will take an act of Congress to put them back in place.

How Your Business Could Be Impacted Without Net Neutrality

Net neutrality offers numerous protections businesses and personal users would suffer without. For instance:

Net Neutrality Prevents ISPs Interfering with Content Delivery, Speeds, and Other Factors
Let’s say that Business A and Business B both offer similar services, and both use ISP X for their Internet services. However, while Business A is an independent small business, Business B is owned by a third company that also owns ISP X.

Without net neutrality, this situation could be very bad for Business A. ISP X could potentially interfere with their services by throttling their speeds or preventing prospects and clients from accessing Business A’s website. Net neutrality prevents this kind of favoritism, whether it comes from a business relationship or financial reasons.

Similarly, net neutrality protects speech and expression, as an ISP can’t stifle content that goes against its or its leadership’s beliefs. So, if Business A happens to publicly support a cause that ISP X’s leadership doesn’t like, net neutrality keeps Business A safe from retribution.

Net Neutrality Supports Innovation and Competition
On a related note, net neutrality gives businesses of all sizes a chance to establish themselves by keeping the playing field nice and level rather than allowing certain ones to effectively outpurchase any burgeoning competition. In doing so, any business’ success becomes far more reliant on the quality of its products and services.

Without net neutrality, established businesses could effectively pay their way to safety by out-investing any competition that springs up, or those that don’t have the available funds to follow suit.

Net Neutrality Turns ISPs Into Utility Providers
Finally, net neutrality would establish Internet services as a public utility, making it necessary for the ISPs to ensure everyone can access their services. This would do quite a bit to reduce and eliminate broadband deserts and the digital divide they create, plus help prevent regional monopolies and their unfettered costs from forming.

Without net neutrality, there is little to encourage ISPs to invest in areas that lack the access that so much of modern life depends on. Plus, these providers are free to divide up territories to avoid competition amongst one another, allowing them to freely raise their prices and profits without offering any improvements to their services.

Naturally, large businesses have the advantage over everyone else without these safeguards.

Hopefully, This Shows Why Net Neutrality is So Critical to Modern Life

If you agree, we encourage you to reach out to your political representation—regardless of party affiliation—and reiterate that net neutrality is a public need that must be enshrined into law for the good of everyone.