This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The Sixth District United States Court of Appeals has granted a stay of a rulemaking issued by the Federal Communications Commission that would regard Internet protocol services as a commoncarrier telecommunications utility under Title II of the Communications Act.
In many parts of urban and rural California, internet services are indeed a monopoly—or at best a duopoly. The common policy response to the monopoly is to either place the service provider into public hands or use a regulatory framework to curtail the ability of the provider to exploit a monopoly position.
16, 2024 – Broadband ISPs have a request for the highest court in the land: Don't let the 50 states set the retail price of Internet access. Net neutrality rules would make ISPs Title II commoncarriers under the Communications Act, subject to more oversight from the FCC. WASHINGTON, Sept. ” The U.S.
WASHINGTON, August 8, 2024 – The Federal Communications Commission’s decision to exempt Internet Service Providers from kicking into a federal broadband subsidy program has this week stirred some procedural activity in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. billion Universal Service Fund.
But one trade group for Internet Service Providers and state officials told judges Wednesday it comes with at least one big benefit: backup from the government in negotiations with utility pole owners. WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2024 – Broadband providers want to avoid net neutrality because it comes with more expansive federal oversight.
In a legal setback for the Federal Communication Commission, the U.S. and Ian Heath Gershengorn argued that any unilateral attempt by the Commission to treat broadband internet access service (BIAS) as a commoncarrier service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 would be a “wasted effort.”
Federal Communications Commission votes to reclassify Internet access as a commoncarrier utility under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 as expected April 25, it’s unlikely to increase affordable access. When the U.S. 202 , titled Discrimination and Preferences.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed Friday to pause consumer groups’ effort to require Internet Service Providers to contribute to a multibillion broadband subsidy program run by the Federal Communications Commission. WASHINGTON, August 12, 2024 – The U.S.
The task is complicated by a FCC rulemaking issued in 2019 ( DA/FCC #: FCC-19-80 ) that bars states from regulating most non-cable services including Internet access service offered over a cable system by an incumbent cable operator. That led a shift in regulatory policy, creating "video franchises."
WASHINGTON, September 12, 2024 – Broadband is straightforwardly a telecommunications service subject to commoncarrier regulation, the Federal Communications Commission told federal judges Wednesday.
States could respond by enacting their own statutes treating advanced telecommunications as a commoncarrier utility, imposing universal service mandates barring neighborhood redlining and imposing rate regulation in order to ensure access and affordability and promote digital equity. But in opposing the U.S. Supreme Court.
Federal Communications Commission’s recently issued Open Internet rulemaking on ice, slated to become effective July 22. The transmitted content isn’t changed; it’s communicated over the Internet to one or more parties. They believe their case has been strengthened by the U.S.
In the fourth decade since telecommunications began to shift to Internet protocol-based technologies, about half the connections to U.S. Thats according to a recently published white paper commissioned by the Fiber Broadband Association and Frontier Communications. homes have not yet been modernized to fiber optic lines.
The activist, results-driven Supreme Court appears ready to limit severely the ability of the Federal Communications Commission and other independent regulatory agencies to interpret ambiguous statutory language and answer essential questions about statutory meaning, even when vastly changing markets and technologies makes such work essential.
It seeks “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market … for the Internet … unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” For almost twenty years, the Federal Communications Commission adhered to Congress’s deregulatory directive, correctly classifying broadband as a Title I service.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied public interest groups’ petition for rehearing en banc Tuesday, leaving in place its earlier decision that struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s Title II net neutrality rules “The petition was circulated to the full court. Bush , reaffirming their January ruling.
WASHINGTON, August 14, 2024 – Two right-leaning think tanks backing ISPs in the challenge to the Federal Communications Commissions Net Neutrality rules claim the new regulatory landscape created by the Supreme Court will doom the rules. ” Mozilla Corp. FCC, 940 F.3d 3d 1, 17 (D.C.
WASHINGTON, Aug 26, 2024 – Federal regulators now have a court date to try to inject new life into their impaired Internet competition rules. ET. On April 25, the FCC voted along party lines to classify broadband ISPs as commoncarriers. It’s Halloween. The U.S. 31, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. ET.
AB 2239 would define it as “policies or practices, not justified by genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility, that differentially impact consumers’ access to broadband internet access service based on their income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin, or that are intended to have a differential impact.”
There’s probably not a communications or administrative lawyer or scholar alive today who is not familiar with the decades-old “net neutrality” saga. Then, the Obama FCC, in a rulemaking proceeding, classified ISPs as telecommunications providers so they would be regulated as commoncarriers.
9, 2025—Another net neutrality autopsy has rolled in following the Federal Communications Commission’s recent defeat in a landmark net neutrality case. She believes that consumers should be able to determine how their internet connection is metered; without government protections, this is out of their control.
Network neutrality regulation will not create a suffocating Internet rate regulation regime. The Democratic majority has clearly exempted broadband internet access from Title II common rate regulation. Title II of the Communications Act does not impose some atavistic, old school “public utility” regulation.
The Court’s conservative super majority wants to reverse its Chevron Doctrine that conditionally supports judicial deference to the expertise resident in agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission. See [link]. See West Virginia v. link] , ¶153-186. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.,
The end of the Affordable Connectivity Act (ACP) sets the stage for the potential modification of the Federal Communication Commission’s recently adopted rulemaking classifying Internet protocol-based services as a commoncarrier utility under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.
A three-judge panel found last month that the Federal Communications Commission could not classify ISPs as Title II commoncarriers under the Telecommunications Act, ruling that the “best reading” of the statute required broadband be defined as a less-regulated information service. WASHINGTON, Feb.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit set aside the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules Thursday, writing that broadband is subject to light-touch regulation under the best reading of the law. “The FCC exceeded its statutory authority by issuing the Safeguarding Order.” 31, 2024.
Broadband Breakfast Broadband Breakfast New broadband deployment rules Both parties at the FCC have sought to ease Internet Service Provider access to utility poles and speed up that permitting process, but the changes to local government approvals would be a departure from the current FCC.
This ruling overturned a previous Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) effort to revive net neutrality regulations, reclassifying broadband providers as commoncarriers. Under the Obama administration, net neutrality rules were first established in 2015, identifying broadband internet as an essential service.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content