This is a lie — "fake news", if you will. This congressional action cancels an upcoming change in policy: it maintains the status quo, and therefore "no longer" is not an accurate characterization of the situation.
They used the Congressional Review Act to strike it down, which requires that it be a new federal regulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act
The CRA includes this, too, so the FCC can no longer do anything about it without a new law passed by Congress:
Once a rule is thus repealed, the CRA also prohibits the reissuing of the rule in substantially the same form or the issuing of a new rule that is substantially the same, "unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule"
> Effective January 3, 2017, except for §§ 64.2003, 64.2004, 64.2006, and 64.2011(b) which contain information collection requirements that have not yet been approved by OMB.
The section in question in the article is 64.2004. It did not go into effect on January 3.
The CRA still ensures it will never come to pass, in any form out of the FCC, and I guess the clauses on data security and breach notifications are considered acceptable collateral damage here.
> it maintains the status quo
No, it reverses the status quo.
The "status quo" was that the FCC would regulate ISP's sale of consumers' data. There is now a climate for where we were before these rules were passed, ala: a business can be built upon schemes like supercookies without opt-in and other dark patterns
Sometimes news stories contain inaccuracies. It happens. Then corrections are issued.
EDIT: I chose "lie" because to make such an obviously false statement accidentally would be a huge mistake for such a trusted organization as BBC; therefore I judged it far more likely to be a deliberate deception. Obviously there's room for interpretation. We'll see if it's ever "corrected".
That is a very optimistic view of news gathering. The BBC makes mistakes all the time. So do all other news organisations.
This error could be a deliberate lie, but to what end? What does the BBC gain by incorrectly describing American consumer protection as existing when they are actually only proposed? I know we live in era of conspiracy theory but I'm struggling to see this one.