Verizon mocks FCC ruling with Morse code response dated 1934, despite using Title II to its benefit
Verizon issues furious response to FCC, in Morse code, dated 1934 — Verizon wants 1st Amendment right to edit the Web, but rules from 1934 are too old.
Context & Ripple Effects
The Morse code stunt lands two months after Verizon told the FCC it could not stop carriers from charging Netflix-like interconnection payments, part of its campaign against the agency reclassifying broadband under Title II. The filing's argument is internally strained: Verizon calls rules from 1934 obsolete even as it relies on Title II where it helps, and asserts a First Amendment right to decide what content flows over its network.
The dispute matters because it previews how Verizon treats FCC authority as optional — fighting it in court on net neutrality while later invoking an FCC order against Rochester's 5G fees when the agency's power suits it.
First-order effects
- Verizon signals it will litigate the Title II net neutrality order rather than comply, putting a First Amendment 'right to edit' claim on the table alongside its antiquation argument.
Second-order effects
- Other ISPs get a template for cherry-picking FCC rulings — resisting them as outdated in one docket while leaning on them elsewhere, as Verizon does in the Rochester fee fight.
Third-order effects
- If carriers successfully frame communications law as negotiable per case, regulatory leverage over ISPs shifts to whichever administration runs the FCC — a dynamic that culminates in the commission approving Verizon's $9.6B Frontier acquisition after DEI concessions.
The trend: Broadband regulation is becoming a bargaining process between the FCC and carriers who treat each ruling as a tool to adopt or litigate depending on which side of their interests it falls.