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 roughly $8 billion-per-year program supports building and maintaining rural networks, plus internet and phone discounts for low-income households, schools and libraries, and health care centers. That takes at least a year.” Oral arguments are slated for March 26, with a ruling expected later this year.
The FCC’s reclassification of Internet delivered services as telecommunications services under its Open Internet rulemaking effectively abrogates this component of its 2019 rulemaking. Pending California legislation (AB 1826) demonstrates the need for commoncarrier utility regulation of IP services.
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.” Verrilli Jr. In contrast to the U.S.,
Cyber attacks on US telecommunicationsnetworks , government agencies , and western allies have been met by calls to improve security and close potential entry points for bad actors. To boost our telecommunications security, we should heed the phrase: “follow the money.” Joshua Levine is a Research Fellow at FAI.
Despite vowing to eschew involvement in the latest Network Neutrality drama, I cannot sit back and let stand the resumption of the distorted gospel preached by the anti-network neutrality crowd. Network neutrality regulation will not create a suffocating Internet rate regulation regime. 1, 47-87 (2015); [link].
Despite all the speculation about pending foreclosure of regulatory agency discretion, there is a provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that the Court might deem sufficiently clear to withstand the major question and ambiguity roadblocks: 47 U.S. Code § 160 - Competition in provision of telecommunications service. See [link].
Having done so previously, the FCC recently restored the application of Title II telecommunications service, commoncarrier to Internet access. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. link] , ¶153-186. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 218 (1994); [link].
Lacking humility and common sense, the Court appears hellbent to outlaw statutory interpretation like what kinds of services fit within the following ambiguous words Congress crafted, circa 1996: “advanced telecommunications capability.” 1302(a), codified by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. 104-104, 110 Stat.
Bear in mind that the FCC, not the Federal Trade Commission, has consumer protection jurisdiction for so-called Title II regulated commoncarriers, including ventures offering pre-paid and post-paid wireless service. Why would a facilities-based carrier pay over $ 1 billion to acquire a reseller of the carrier’snetwork?
Carr actually outlined his priorities for broadband and telecommunications policy in a chapter of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 policy agenda. Inclusion on the list blocks a company from selling new products and network equipment in the U.S. WASHINGTON, Oct.
The Cincinnati-based court said the FCC misread the 1996 Telecommunications Act, arguing it required the agency to keep broadband Internet Service Providers lightly regulated. But they do not transform the categorization of telephone service because its core standalone offering is the transparent transmission of telecommunications.”
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.
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