While the regulator has been focused on cosmetic changes to its rulebook so far, its aim for more meaningful deregulation will likely draw more process-based objections
The FCC has published its final decision to delete 386 fixed telecoms regulations
On 30 September 2025, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a direct final rule to remove 386 existing federal regulations (equalling 29,181 words and 69 pages) on wireline, i.e. fixed, communications from its rulebook, advancing its Delete, Delete, Delete agenda. In its announcement, the regulator described the deleted regulations as “obsolete, outdated or unnecessary”, suggesting some dated back to the “breakup of Ma Bell in 1984” and the liberalisation of telecoms markets in the US. This most recent package of deleted regulations follows similar actions to deregulate broadcast markets in August 2025 and some specific but limited telecoms regulations in July 2025. To date, Brendan Carr (Chair, FCC) stated that the regulator has deleted 804 rules and requirements across its remit, equalling about 70,000 and 158 pages of regulation.
The regulator described the included rules as obsolete and non-substantive, but one commissioner argued their impact was not well-known
The FCC described the regulations included within its direct final rule as largely cosmetic and offered limited additional context on the lines of text to be removed from the cited measures. The deleted rules include references to obsolete technologies, defunct definitions, such as classifications for fixed-line providers and programmatic terms, and dates related to universal service programming, pilot programmes and equipment requirements that have since been phased out. The package also included some duplicative measures as well as outdated reporting requirements, identified through the regulator’s ongoing effort to review every measure passed within its remit as part of the Delete agenda. Though all commissioners largely agreed with the fact most rules affected by the move were not substantive, Anna Gomez (Commissioner, FCC) dissented to the decision to adopt the final rule and highlighted concerns with including regulations related to accessible technology and services for disabled communities. While Gomez did not suggest the deleted rules would definitely negatively impact these consumers, she nonetheless emphasised the limited clarity around the potential implications of their deletion.
Chairman Carr plans to move out of the “deadwood” phases of deregulation and onto more meaningful Delete, Delete, Delete work
After a series of references to US baseball legend Yogi Berra, Carr described this tranche of deleted regulations as the halfway point in the "deadwood stage” of the Delete, Delete, Delete initiative, perhaps referencing his earlier call to “clear out the regulatory underbrush” hampering economic growth. He previewed that, after the FCC finished reviewing the “low-hanging fruits” to remove from the rulebook governing each bureau within the regulator, it would move onto reviewing and potentially deleting more significant and substantial regulations. While Carr has long characterised the initiative as an effort to remove barriers to network investment and modernisation, Gomez has consistently described the regulator’s recent actions as a misuse of certain expedited proceedings in explaining her continued objections to Delete, Delete, Delete rulings. Specifically, she has criticised the use of direct final rule proceedings, through which the FCC provides shortened opportunities for public comment, to deregulate. Under the proceedings launched to date, the regulator has provided between 10 and 20 days for public comment after publishing its intended actions, which automatically take effect unless it deems the comments it receives during these consultations periods as being significant and negative enough to pause the action. Gomez suggested a longer comment period would allow consumers impacted by decisions, such as the disabled consumers she referenced in the context of the wireline actions, to understand the proposals and inform the FCC of how regulation has affected their community, especially in contexts where the regulator may have less immediate awareness. As the FCC advances into promised future phases of its Delete, Delete, Delete programme, Gomez’s criticism that the regulator will have no opportunity to hear from stakeholders and communities that may disagree with more significant deregulation items will continue, though it appears unlikely to impact the progress of the initiative.
