Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Has the 2017 change been reversed or further modified since 2017?
Executive Summary
The short answer is: yes — the 2017 net-neutrality-reorientation was formally reversed by the Federal Communications Commission in 2024, while the 2017 federal tax changes have been partly preserved, partly altered, and in some accounts materially modified by legislation in 2025; both topics remain politically contested. The FCC’s April 2024 vote to restore strong net neutrality protections marked a clear reversal of the 2017 rollback and resumed Title II-style oversight of broadband, a move portrayed as restoring consumer protections but criticized as heavier regulation by industry; by contrast, analyses of federal tax law show a more complex trajectory where parts of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act were made permanent or adjusted by the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill in mid‑2025 while other 2017 provisions retain sunset clauses or were left uncertain, generating debates about distributional impacts and deficit costs [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. How Washington undid the 2017 internet rules — and why the fight didn’t end there
The Federal Communications Commission’s 2024 decision reversed the 2017 rollback by reinstating landmark net neutrality rules and reassumed regulatory oversight of broadband, a clear policy pivot that aligned with the Biden administration’s priorities to ensure open internet access. The vote was partisan and framed by proponents as necessary to prevent blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, restoring Title II‑style authority that the 2017 decision removed; supporters argued it empowers the FCC to hold providers accountable, while opponents warned of an oppressive regulatory regime that could deter broadband investment. States had already stepped into the breach with at least a dozen adopting their own net neutrality rules and industry groups largely abandoned legal challenges by 2022, so the 2024 federal action both standardized and escalated the policy fight on regulatory control and consumer protection [1] [2] [3].
2. The 2017 tax overhaul’s afterlife: partial permanence, big political choices
Post‑2017 tax policy did not follow a single trajectory; instead it split into pieces that either remained temporary, expired, or were later codified. The analyses describe a legislative move in 2025 — the One Big Beautiful Bill — that made several temporary TCJA provisions permanent while modifying others, such as raising caps on state and local tax deductions temporarily and changing credits and exemptions; proponents framed this as simplifying taxes and delivering permanent relief, while critics and nonpartisan scorekeepers warned of substantial long‑run deficit effects and skewed benefits to higher income earners. The treatment of individual brackets, exemptions, and sunset mechanics created a patchwork in which some 2017-era measures endured but others were reshaped, leaving the overall legacy mixed and politically charged [4] [5] [6].
3. Conflicting narratives: consumer protection versus regulatory burdens; tax relief versus deficit costs
Both policy reversals trigger binary framings from political camps that obscure complexity. On net neutrality, supporters emphasize consumer safeguards and equitable access, citing the FCC’s 2024 restoration as correcting a market failure; opponents emphasize potential regulatory overreach that could suppress private investment and innovation, a classic industry framing. On taxes, advocates of the 2025 legislation stress permanence and predictability for households and businesses, while critics point to Congressional Budget Office‑style estimates that the changes could add trillions to deficits and disproportionately favor wealthier taxpayers. Each side’s messaging carries discernible agendas: consumer‑rights advocacy and progressive policy aims on one hand, and industry lobbying and fiscal conservatism on the other, requiring scrutiny of both stated goals and fiscal or market tradeoffs [1] [2] [4] [5].
4. The practical effects and the lingering uncertainties policymakers left behind
Reinstating net neutrality standardized rules nationwide but left open questions about enforcement posture, litigation, and technological nuance — for example, how the FCC will balance innovation in network management with open‑access mandates and how courts will respond to renewed Title II authority. Similarly, the 2025 tax measures resolved some uncertainty by making key items permanent, but sunset clauses, phased caps, and retroactive provisions mean many households and states still face transitional rules and future reversals, while estimations of macroeconomic effects and distributional outcomes differ across analyses. The near‑term certainty the laws provide is therefore incomplete: regulatory strategy, legal challenges, and budgetary consequences will determine the real‑world outcomes beyond headline reversals and enactments [3] [4] [6].
5. Bottom line for observers: look beyond the headline ‘reversal’ to the details that matter
Both policy arenas demonstrate that a headline “reversal” is only the start of a longer political, legal, and economic story. The FCC’s 2024 vote reversed the 2017 net neutrality approach but introduced new axes of debate over enforcement and industry impact, while the 2025 tax law modified and in some cases cemented parts of the 2017 tax package while leaving other pieces temporary or altered — outcomes that reshape distributional effects and federal finances. Stakeholders and analysts should track enforcement actions, litigation, CBO scoring, and implementation rules to assess the enduring impact of these reversals and modifications, because the legal text and administrative practice will ultimately determine how the changes affect consumers, businesses, and public budgets [1] [2] [4] [5].