Rebuttal to Federal Communications Commission
by: Brendan Carr
Rebuttal to Federal Communications Commission by Brendan Carr
Brendan Carr’s vision for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in Project 2025 advocates for significantly reducing the regulatory authority of the FCC, emphasizing deregulation as a means to promote innovation, economic growth, and the expansion of broadband infrastructure. While Carr’s focus on fostering growth in the telecommunications sector is commendable, his approach overlooks the critical role the FCC plays in protecting consumers, ensuring competition, and safeguarding public interests. Weakening the FCC’s regulatory oversight would likely result in negative consequences for consumers, reduced competition, and the erosion of key protections for a fair and equitable communications landscape.
Protecting Consumer Interests
The FCC has a vital role in protecting consumers from exploitative practices by telecommunications companies. One of the most significant areas in which the FCC serves the public is by regulating the pricing, service quality, and availability of telecommunications services, such as broadband internet and wireless communication. Without these regulations, companies could engage in anti-competitive practices, such as price gouging, limiting access to services in underserved areas, or reducing service quality in pursuit of profit.
Carr’s proposal to scale back the FCC’s regulatory authority would likely result in fewer consumer protections. For example, during the debate over net neutrality, the FCC’s rules ensured that internet service providers (ISPs) could not block, throttle, or prioritize certain types of content over others. These protections were designed to maintain a free and open internet, where consumers have equal access to all content, without interference from ISPs. By repealing net neutrality protections in 2017, the FCC under Carr’s guidance moved away from safeguarding these fundamental principles.
Without strong regulatory oversight, ISPs could once again prioritize content or services that benefit them financially, creating a tiered internet where large corporations can pay for faster access while smaller companies and individual consumers are left with slower, less reliable service. This undermines the concept of a fair and open internet and harms consumers who rely on equal access to information and services.
Ensuring Competition in Telecommunications
Carr’s focus on deregulation also downplays the importance of competition in the telecommunications industry. The FCC has historically played a crucial role in promoting competition by preventing the formation of monopolies or oligopolies that would dominate the market and limit consumer choice. Telecommunications is an industry with high barriers to entry, and without regulatory safeguards, it is easy for a few dominant companies to exert disproportionate control over pricing and service offerings.
The FCC’s regulations help ensure that smaller telecommunications companies and new market entrants have a fair chance to compete against established players. By encouraging competition, the FCC promotes innovation, better pricing, and higher service quality for consumers. Weakening the FCC’s authority, as Carr advocates, would allow the largest telecommunications companies to consolidate even more power, potentially stifling competition and reducing consumer choice.
In rural and underserved areas, where broadband access is limited or nonexistent, the FCC plays a key role in expanding infrastructure through programs like the Universal Service Fund (USF). These initiatives ensure that all Americans, regardless of where they live, have access to essential communications services. Without FCC intervention, there is little financial incentive for private companies to invest in building infrastructure in less profitable areas, leaving millions of Americans without reliable internet access. Carr’s emphasis on deregulation would likely reduce the FCC’s ability to ensure that rural and low-income areas receive the same level of service as urban and affluent regions, deepening the digital divide.
Safeguarding Public Interests
Beyond consumer protection and competition, the FCC has a broader mandate to safeguard the public interest, including regulating broadcast media and ensuring fair and equal access to communications channels. One of the FCC’s most important roles is to oversee the allocation of spectrum—radio frequencies used for communications, including television, radio, and wireless broadband. The FCC’s authority ensures that spectrum is used efficiently, fairly, and in the public interest.
Carr’s vision of a deregulated FCC would diminish the agency’s ability to manage spectrum allocation effectively, potentially leading to spectrum hoarding by large corporations or inefficient use of this limited resource. Spectrum is a public good, and its allocation must be carefully managed to ensure that it benefits the broader public, rather than being controlled by a handful of powerful companies.
The FCC is also responsible for maintaining standards in broadcast media, ensuring that content is appropriate for different audiences, including children, and that the airwaves are used responsibly. Without adequate regulation, media companies may prioritize profit over the public good, potentially leading to a decline in the quality and diversity of content available to consumers. A deregulated FCC would have fewer tools to ensure that broadcast media serves the needs of the public, rather than simply maximizing corporate profits.
The Digital Divide and Broadband Access
Carr’s argument for deregulation is rooted in the idea that reducing government oversight will encourage private investment in telecommunications infrastructure, particularly in expanding broadband access. However, deregulation alone is unlikely to close the digital divide—the gap between those who have access to high-speed internet and those who do not.
The FCC has been instrumental in addressing the digital divide through targeted programs that provide funding and incentives to expand broadband infrastructure in underserved areas. The Connect America Fund (CAF) and Lifeline program, for example, help bring affordable internet to rural communities and low-income households, ensuring that everyone has access to the internet in an increasingly digital world.
Carr’s emphasis on reducing regulations risks undermining these efforts by shifting the responsibility for expanding broadband access entirely to private companies, which may not find it profitable to invest in rural or low-income areas. Without FCC intervention, these communities could be left behind, further exacerbating economic and social inequalities. Broadband access is no longer a luxury—it is a necessity for education, healthcare, employment, and participation in civic life. The FCC’s role in ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable, reliable internet is crucial, and deregulation threatens to undermine these efforts.
Maintaining Fair Standards for Content and Ownership
Another important area of FCC regulation is media ownership. The FCC enforces rules designed to prevent media monopolies, ensuring that a diversity of voices and perspectives are represented in the media landscape. Without these regulations, a few large corporations could control vast swaths of the media, limiting the range of viewpoints available to the public and reducing the quality of journalism.
Carr’s push for deregulation would likely lead to further consolidation in the media industry, reducing competition and limiting access to diverse and independent news sources. This is especially concerning in an era where media consolidation has already diminished local news coverage, leaving many communities without reliable information about local government, politics, and events. The FCC’s media ownership rules help maintain a healthy and diverse media ecosystem, and reducing the FCC’s power would likely accelerate the trend toward media consolidation, limiting the public’s access to independent journalism.
Conclusion: The Need for a Balanced Approach to Regulation
While Brendan Carr’s proposal to reduce the FCC’s regulatory authority may appeal to those who prioritize deregulation and market-driven growth, it overlooks the critical protections that the FCC provides to consumers, competition, and the public interest. The FCC plays an essential role in ensuring that telecommunications services are accessible, affordable, and equitable for all Americans. It also protects the integrity of the media and communications systems that underpin our democracy.
Deregulating the FCC, as Carr suggests, would lead to fewer consumer protections, reduced competition, and greater inequality in access to communications services. The FCC’s regulatory oversight ensures that the telecommunications industry operates fairly, that underserved communities are not left behind, and that media and communications channels remain open and diverse.
Rather than scaling back the FCC’s authority, policymakers should focus on strengthening the agency’s ability to protect consumers, promote competition, and address the digital divide. A balanced approach to regulation—one that fosters innovation while safeguarding the public interest—is essential to ensuring that the communications infrastructure of the future is fair, inclusive, and beneficial to all.