Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 191 Results in FCC
TOTM In the opening seconds of what was surely one of the worst oral arguments in a high-profile case that I have ever heard, Pantelis Michalopoulos, . . .
In the opening seconds of what was surely one of the worst oral arguments in a high-profile case that I have ever heard, Pantelis Michalopoulos, arguing for petitioners against the FCC’s 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order (RIFO) expertly captured both why the side he was representing should lose and the overall absurdity of the entire net neutrality debate: “This order is a stab in the heart of the Communications Act. It would literally write ‘telecommunications’ out of the law. It would end the communications agency’s oversight over the main communications service of our time.”
Read the full piece here.
Amicus Brief ICLE filed a brief in support of Petitioners in the D.C. Circuit case, Mozilla v. FCC, a case that challenged the FCC's authority to issue the Restoring Internet Freedom Order ("RIFO").
ICLE filed a brief in support of Petitioners in the D.C. Circuit case, Mozilla v. FCC, a case that challenged the FCC’s authority to issue the Restoring Internet Freedom Order (“RIFO”). In RIFO, the FCC repealed the Title II classification on ISPs, preempted conflicting state laws, and applied a transparency rule against ISPs, among other provisions. In our brief, we argue that:
Contrary to the claims of Petitioners, the Commission acted well within its authority in adopting the Order. The Commission developed a comprehensive regulatory scheme for ISPs that includes both obligations imposed under the Communications Act, as well as complementary regulation and potential enforcement under antitrust law by the Commission’s sister agencies. As we show below, this competition-oriented, light touch regulatory regime comports with the relevant provisions and stated goals of the Communications Act far better than the ex ante rules adopted in the Title II Order. In adopting this competition-oriented regulatory regime, the Commission also acted within its authority to preempt contradictory state laws under well- established precedent. The Commission did so while properly allowing for states to continue to regulate under other laws of general applicability that do not conflict with or frustrate the federal policies underlying the Order. Accordingly, the Order should be upheld and the petitions for review should be denied.
Contrary to the claims of Petitioners, the Commission acted well within its authority in adopting the Order. The Commission developed a comprehensive regulatory scheme for ISPs that includes both obligations imposed under the Communications Act, as well as complementary regulation and potential enforcement under antitrust law by the Commission’s sister agencies. As we show below, this competition-oriented, light touch regulatory regime comports with the relevant provisions and stated goals of the Communications Act far better than the ex ante rules adopted in the Title II Order.
In adopting this competition-oriented regulatory regime, the Commission also acted within its authority to preempt contradictory state laws under well- established precedent. The Commission did so while properly allowing for states to continue to regulate under other laws of general applicability that do not conflict with or frustrate the federal policies underlying the Order.
Accordingly, the Order should be upheld and the petitions for review should be denied.
TOTM FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel penned an article this week on the doublespeak coming out of the current administration with respect to trade and telecom policy. On one hand, she argues, the administration has proclaimed 5G to be an essential part of our future commercial and defense interests.
FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel penned an article this week on the doublespeak coming out of the current administration with respect to trade and telecom policy. On one hand, she argues, the administration has proclaimed 5G to be an essential part of our future commercial and defense interests. But, she tells us, the administration has, on the other hand, imposed tariffs on Chinese products that are important for the development of 5G infrastructure, thereby raising the costs of roll-out. This is a sound critique: regardless where one stands on the reasonableness of tariffs, they unquestionably raise the prices of goods on which they are placed, and raising the price of inputs to the 5G ecosystem can only slow down the pace at which 5G technology is deployed.
Regulatory Comments ICLE submitted Comments to the Federal Communications Commission in Opposition to Petitions to Deny the T-Mobile-Sprint Merger. ICLE's comments argue that the petitions to deny fail to provide any compelling reason to adopt a presumption against this merger. To the contrary, there are good reasons to think that this transaction will benefit consumers and the economy.
Yesterday, ICLE submitted Comments to the Federal Communications Commission in Opposition to Petitions to Deny the T-Mobile-Sprint Merger. ICLE’s comments argue that the petitions to deny fail to provide any compelling reason to adopt a presumption against this merger. To the contrary, there are good reasons to think that this transaction will benefit consumers and the economy. The complete comments can be found here.
The conventional wisdom in opposition to the T-Mobile/Sprint merger has it that a competitive mobile market requires 4 national providers. But there are no economic grounds for this assertion; it’s basically an arbitrary number, offered up in order to squelch any further concentration in the industry.
As ICLE scholars discuss in these comments, increased concentration is not necessarily good or bad in itself–it depends on the circumstances. Increases in market concentration in the US mobile industry have historically been accompanied by dramatic increases in quality and reductions in price. And there are compelling reasons to believe that the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint will continue this trend.
A proper assessment of this transaction requires the Commission to account for the specific characteristics of the markets affected by the merger—including, most importantly, the dynamic, fast-moving nature of competition and the importance of high fixed costs of production and economies of scale. This is particularly important given the potential for the transaction to facilitate the launch of a competitive, national 5G network.
Opponents claim this merger takes us from four to three national carriers. But in terms of future investment in general, and the roll-out of 5G in particular, it does not; a better characterization is that it takes us from two to three national carriers investing to build out next-generation networks.
In the past, the capital expenditures made by AT&T and Verizon have dwarfed those of T-Mobile and Sprint. But New T-Mobile would be in a far better position to make the kinds of large-scale investments necessary to develop a nationwide 5G network. As a result, it is likely that both the urban-rural digital divide and the rich-poor digital divide will decline following the merger. And this investment will drive competition with AT&T and Verizon, leading to innovation, improving service and–over time–lowering the cost of access.
Indeed, the potential benefits of the deal—including wider access to, and more timely deployment of, high-speed wireless data at lower cost, as well as a host of other innovations—are considerable. In order to ensure that such consumer benefits can be realized, it is crucial that the proposed merger not be thwarted by regulators inappropriately focused on short-term, static effects.
Presentations & Interviews Despite the Federal Communication Commission’s decision in December 2017 to eliminate the common carrier regulations for Internet services — the so-called net neutrality rules the FCC created in 2015 — the net neutrality debate rages on. Gus Hurwitz, Brent Skorup, and Geoffrey Manne discuss this new front in regulation, federalism, and grassroots activism.
Despite the Federal Communication Commission’s decision in December 2017 to eliminate the common carrier regulations for Internet services — the so-called net neutrality rules the FCC created in 2015 — the net neutrality debate rages on. The Trump FCC preempted states’ authority to regulate the Internet, yet governors in six states have attempted to enforce net neutrality principles via executive order and three states have passed “baby net neutrality bills.” Several more state bills are pending. Can state agencies regulate Internet services? What are the legal and practical impediments? What are the consequences of businesses operating under inconsistent regulations amongst the states and at the federal level? Gus Hurwitz, Brent Skorup, and Geoffrey Manne discuss this new front in regulation, federalism, and grassroots activism.
The full episode is embedded below.
Popular Media The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will soon vote on whether to repeal an Obama-era rule classifying Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as “common carriers.” That rule . . .
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will soon vote on whether to repeal an Obama-era rule classifying Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as “common carriers.” That rule was put in place to achieve net neutrality, an attractive-sounding goal that many Americans—millennials especially—reflexively support.
TOTM This week the FCC will vote on Chairman Ajit Pai’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order. Once implemented, the Order will rescind the 2015 Open Internet Order and return . . .
This week the FCC will vote on Chairman Ajit Pai’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order. Once implemented, the Order will rescind the 2015 Open Internet Order and return antitrust and consumer protection enforcement to primacy in Internet access regulation in the U.S.
Amicus Brief This case raises significant questions about the thoroughness with which a court must review agency decisionmaking—or the extent to which a court may instead defer to that decisionmaking—when the agency has reversed a prior policy determination in the absence of a change in applicable law.
This case raises significant questions about the thoroughness with which a court must review agency decisionmaking—or the extent to which a court may instead defer to that decisionmaking—when the agency has reversed a prior policy determination in the absence of a change in applicable law.
The Open Internet Order (“OIO”) issued by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) presents such a policy reversal. The FCC ostensibly rooted the OIO in sufficient factual and legal analysis, but closer examination reveals that the OIO is based upon implausible factual assertions, questionable factual reinterpretations, and the strategic disavowal of long-defended statutory interpretation, all in support of a radical change in federal telecommunications policy that raises questions of vast economic and political significance.
Nevertheless, as discussed in Part I, the D.C. Circuit opinion affirming the OIO reflexively afforded substantial deference to the FCC, declining to consider serious questions about the reasonableness or permissibility of the FCC’s decisionmaking process. That decision is both in tension with this Court’s precedents and, more, raises exceptionally important and previously unaddressed questions about this Court’s precedents on judicial review of agency changes of policy.
As discussed in Part II, recent empirical work suggests that there are systematic problems with judicial review of agency changes in policy. These problems—respecting the substantive quality of agency and judicial decisions as well as judicial understanding of, or compliance with, this Court’s precedents governing such review—have led to consistently inconsistent review of agency policy changes in the circuit courts. Judicial review of agency policy changes thus presents a certiorari doublewhammy: there is a need for this Court to clarify existing precedent regarding judicial review of such policy changes and to address inconsistent application of that precedent, as well as for this Court to consider whether evidence of systematically problematic decisionmaking when agencies change policies militates in favor of a more searching standard of review.
Part III discusses how the D.C. Circuit and the Commission’s OIO implicate these concerns.
A new article by Professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule highlights the exceptional significance of this issue. See Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, The Morality of Administrative Law, HARV. L. REV. (forthcoming 2018). In discussing empirical evidence collected by Professors Kent Barnett and Christopher Walker (discussed in Part II), Sunstein and Vermeule note that there is a “discrepancy between the law on the books and the law in action” when it comes to how courts review changes in agency policy. Id. (manuscript at 24) (https://papers.srn.com/abstract_id=3050722).
In National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), this Court held that an agency’s alteration of policy is not grounds for heightened scrutiny. Id. at 981 (“Agency inconsistency is not a basis for declining to analyze the agency’s interpretation under the Chevron framework. Unexplained inconsistency is, at most, a reason for holding an interpretation to be an arbitrary and capricious change from agency practice under the Administrative Procedure Act.”). But, as Sunstein and Vermeule observe, “Brand X notwithstanding, the Court just isn’t particularly clear or consistent about the role of consistency under Chevron.” Sunstein & Vermeule, supra (manuscript at 23-24 n.159).
Indeed, “[a]t the level of individual cases, although no subsequent case has denied the rule expressly laid out in Brand X, opinions have occasionally adverted to consistency as a Chevron factor—including opinions for the Court.” Id. (ms. at 23). Moreover, contrary to the rule laid out in Brand X, “[a]t the level of large-N research, recent work by Chris Walker and Kent Barnett shows that judges in fact tend to defer more heavily to consistent agency interpretations.” Id. (ms. at 23-24).
In this instance, it seems likely that the policy under review will reverse course yet again, with the agency returning to the pre-OIO interpretation of the law and issuing new rules consistent with that interpretation. Indeed, it must be acknowledged that the FCC could reverse the OIO as soon as December of this year. Under ordinary circumstances this would appear to moot, or at least substantially lessen, the concerns raised by petitioners here.
But the foreseeability of significant administrative policy changes—in this case and elsewhere—abetted by the precedent of substantial deference established in this case, militates in favor of the Court granting certiorari. Should the FCC reverse the OIO, it is a foregone conclusion that supporters of the current order will challenge that reversal in a proceeding that will raise many of the same legal concerns currently at issue. The issuance of a new rule will thus not moot the issues in this case, but simply raise the precise issues yet again. Indeed, without clear guidance from this Court, there is every reason to believe the process will become an endless feedback loop—in the case of this regulation and others—at great cost not only to regulated entities and their consumers, but also to the integrity of the regulatory process.
Regulatory Comments As the Commission’s NPRM notes, the 2015 Open Internet Order “has weakened Americans’ online privacy by stripping the Federal Trade Commission — the nation’s premier consumer protection agency — of its jurisdiction over ISPs’ privacy and data security practices.”
As the Commission’s NPRM notes, the 2015 Open Internet Order “has weakened Americans’ online privacy by stripping the Federal Trade Commission — the nation’s premier consumer protection agency — of its jurisdiction over ISPs’ privacy and data security practices.”1 The Restoring Internet Freedom NPRM further notes that:
To address the gap created by the Commission’s reclassification of broadband Internet access service as a common carriage service, the Title II Order called for a new rulemaking to apply section 222’s customer proprietary network information provisions to Internet service providers. In October 2016, the Commission adopted rules governing Internet service providers’ privacy practices and applied the rules it adopted to other providers of telecommunications services. In March 2017, Congress voted under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to disapprove the Commission’s 2016 Privacy Order, which prevents us from adopting rules in substantially the same form.
The Restoring Internet Freedom NPRM proposes to return to the status quo in place before the Commission adopted its 2015 Open Internet Order with respect to privacy rules: not to adopt any new FCC rules, and leave regulation of privacy to the FTC.3 We offer these comments in response to the Commission’s request regarding that proposal.
