In a significant shift for U.S. telecommunications policy, the Federal Communications Commission under the Trump administration has decided to abandon key efforts aimed at ensuring broadband deployment is both rapid and accessible to all Americans. According to a recent report from Techdirt, the FCC is no longer pursuing mandates under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, which requires the agency to assess whether broadband is being rolled out “on a reasonable and timely basis” to everyone. If deployment falls short, the law obligates the FCC to act swiftly by eliminating barriers to investment and fostering competition.

This move effectively halts initiatives that could have pressured internet service providers to expand high-speed networks more aggressively, particularly in underserved rural and low-income areas. Industry observers note that previous administrations, including during the Biden era, used Section 706 to justify actions like restoring net neutrality and pushing for affordability benchmarks, such as minimum speeds of 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload at accessible prices.

The Erosion of Regulatory Oversight

The decision comes amid broader efforts by the Trump FCC to dismantle consumer protections, as detailed in earlier Techdirt coverage. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has been vocal about prioritizing deregulation, arguing that market forces alone should drive broadband expansion. Critics, however, contend this approach ignores persistent market failures, where monopolistic providers like Comcast and AT&T have long neglected unprofitable regions, leaving millions without reliable internet.

Compounding the issue, the administration has threatened to withhold federal funding from states attempting their own affordability measures. For instance, a Techdirt article from July highlighted threats against California’s proposed law requiring ISPs to offer 100/20 Mbps service for $15 monthly to low-income residents, potentially derailing state-level innovations.

Shifting Priorities Toward Satellite Solutions

Instead of enforcing Section 706, the FCC appears to favor alternatives like satellite broadband, with recent policy tweaks benefiting providers such as Elon Musk’s Starlink. A study referenced in Techdirt indicates Starlink’s network is already congested and ill-suited for widespread U.S. deployment, yet the administration has rewritten rules for a $42.5 billion subsidy program to include it, sidelining fiber-optic priorities.

This pivot has drawn scrutiny from outlets like The Register, which reported the FCC’s proposal to undo Biden-era benchmarks for gigabit speeds and affordability. Proponents argue it cuts red tape, but detractors warn it could exacerbate the digital divide, with rural areas stuck with inferior, high-latency options.

Implications for Industry and Consumers

For telecom giants, this regulatory retreat means fewer obligations to invest in infrastructure, potentially boosting short-term profits but stifling long-term innovation. As Cory Doctorow noted on Medium, satellite technologies like Starlink degrade with increased users, raising questions about scalability in a nation where broadband access remains uneven.

Consumers, especially in economically disadvantaged communities, face the brunt: without federal pressure, affordable high-speed internet may remain elusive. Posts on X, formerly Twitter, reflect public frustration, with users highlighting how the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program is now skewed toward lower-cost, less reliable tech, as per sentiments from accounts like More Perfect Union.

Looking Ahead to Policy Battles

The abandonment of Section 706 signals a philosophical shift toward minimal government intervention, aligning with Trump-era executive actions that weaken agency authority. Legal challenges are likely, as advocacy groups argue it violates the Telecom Act’s intent.

Ultimately, this policy could redefine U.S. broadband for years, prioritizing corporate leeway over universal access. Industry insiders will watch closely as states and courts respond, potentially forcing a reckoning on what “reasonable and timely” deployment truly means in 2025.