In the United States Supreme Court case Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Verizon Communications argued that it was wrong and unreasonable for the Federal Communications Commission to regulate and set leasing rates for networks. Ultimately, the January 14th decision held that the Federal Communications Commission can indeed set rates charged by the service provider for leased elements that are completely unbound from the provider's investment. Also the Federal Communications Commission can also require service provider's to combine certain elements of their networks at the request of the customer or user. However, in regards to network neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission does not have the authority to enforce any such rules.
This decision stems from the Telecommunications act of 1996 which gives the Federal Communications Commission the ability define standard leasing rates with almost infinite flexibility. However, Verizon successfully argued that the Federal Communications Commission isn't authorized require a state utility commission to set rates by local exchange carriers for lease of network elements to competitive local exchange carriers. Essentially, three main issues were focused on: the pricing rules for unbundled network elements; whether excluding past costs constitutes a governmental taking; and thirdly what are the rules for combining network elements.
Taking a deeper look at the Telecommunications act of 1996 gives us a better understanding of what type of authoritative power the Federal Communications Commission actually has. The Act contains as follows in the context of local exchange carriers:
" The duty to provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier...
... middle of paper ...
...y of any future internet regulation.
But, it is also important to note that all of this could have been avoided if the Federal Communications Commission had the foresight to call broadband providers "common carriers." A common carrier easily falls under Title II of the Communications Act. But, under the decision, any Net Neutrality anti-blocking rules are deemed unlawful. So, the Federal Communications Commission does not have the authority to impose or enforce rules that would give the free market favor against the politically and economically powerful network provider.
Works Cited
http://transition.fcc.gov/telecom.html http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/01/22/decoding-net-neutrality-user-friendly-explanation-verizon-v-fcc-and-its-impact http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~raylin/whatisnetneutrality.htm
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common+carrier
The Schenck case in the early 1900s dealt with the freedom of speech as it related to the draft of World War I. Charles Schenck sent mass mail that stated “the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system” (Schenck v. United States). The federal government found this to be in violation of the Clear and Present Danger Test as well as the Espionage Act and arrested Schenck for his actions. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court and was ruled in favor of the United States unanimously. The opinion of the court violates the free speech clause as well as a right to have peaceful protest by denying Schenck to share his opinions of the draft with others despite the opinion of the government on this action. Due to these violations the ruling on the Schneck v. United States case should be overturned in order to protect the right of free speech and protest to all citizens.
Deborah P. Labelle filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission on September 3, 2009 against Rogers Communications Inc. The complainant, Labelle feels that Rogers Communications Inc. the respondent, discriminated against her because she is a woman. This falls under section 3 of the CHRA which covers and protects against sex discrimination. Labelle alleges she was treated differently compared to her male counterparts and was eventually fired from her position. The complainant filed this complaint on the grounds of sex discrimination.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 can be termed as a major overhaul of the communications law in the past sixty-two years. The main aim of this Act is to enable any communications firm to enter the market and compete against one another based on fair and just practices (“The Telecommunications Act 1996,” The Federal Communications Commission). This Act has the potential to radically change the lives of the people in a number of different ways. For instance it has affected the telephone services both local and long distance, cable programming and other video services, broadcast services and services provided to schools. The Federal Communications Commission has actively endorsed this Act and has worked towards the enforcement and implementation of the various clauses listed in the document. The Act was basically brought into existence in order to promote competition and reduce regulation so that lower prices and higher quality services for the Americans consumers may be secured.
Simones, A. (1995). Lecture on FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. October 27, 1995. Constitutional Law, Southwest Missouri State University.
Although the net neutrality debate didn’t come into the spot light so long ago, it has sparked controversy in the communications world. This concept provides a positive impact to the consumers, competition and network owners/internet service providers. It broadens the aspect of equality, which the open Internet was first based on. The profound effects on the aforementioned players provide a supported purpose to regulate the notion of net neutrality.
new broadband technology. Therefore, the restrictions enforced by the FTC are to ensure that a full range of content and services by non-affiliated Internet Service Providers is available to subscribers, to prevent discrimination by AOL-Time Warner to other non-affiliated Internet Service providers, to provide a full range of content and services and to lessen competition in the market for broadband Internet Service Provider service. The FTC restrictions state that first AOL-Time Warner must make at least one non-affiliated cable broadband service available on Time Warner's cable systems before AOL itself begins offering its service. Second, AOL-Time Warner cannot interfere with content that it has restricted to deliver to subscribers of its cable
Broadcasting involves specific rules and regulations that must be followed. The paramount justification for regulating broadcast is the scarcity rationale. The radio spectrum is extremely large, and cannot assist the needs of everyone who wants to broadcast. The spectrum as a whole relies on the government to manage and operate it. It is up to them to decide what broadcasters will best serve the public. A scarcity rationale case, NBC v. United States arose when regulations and restrictions were put on radio stations that were to protect “public interest.” Radio Networks proceeded to test the guidelines and licensing laws, resulting in the FCC gaining strong power over regulations of the radio spectrum. Although the Communications Act provides equal opportunities to all candidates with equivalent broadcast time, it still did not confine the FCC from having overall control.
Years later, the Telecommunication Act of 1996 triggered dramatic changes in the competitive landscape. SBC Communications Inc. established itself as a global communications provider by acquiring Pacific Telesis Group and becoming the new AT&T. The merger of AT& T and BellSouth, along with the ownership consolidation of Cingular Wireless and YELLOWPAGES.COM, will speed convergence, competition and continued innovation in the communications and entertainment industry, creating new solutions for consumers and businesses and positioned to lead the industry in one of its most signifi...
Facts: The FCC worries about the relationship of broadband and edge providers. That fear, being end-user providers will not be able to access edge providers as a whole. It might also reduce the quality of their end-user subscriber’s contact to certain edge providers. It may also reduce the earnings of favoring their own competing content or services, or to enable them or collect fees from edge providers. Since the advent of the Internet, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has confronted the questions of whether and how it should regulate
On thursday The Federal Communications Commission voted to end net neutrality. A Lot of people were not happy with their decision, some states and interest groups are planning to sue. Back in october 29, 2007 Barack Obama pledged support for net neutrality to protect free and open internet, later on in 2015 the FCC voted in favor of strong net neutrality rules to keep the internet open and free. Now 3 men decided to go against it causing the end of net neutrality and ignoring 83% of peoples wishes.
Economides, N. (1998, September 1998). The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its Impact. Retrieved June 18,2006, from http://raven.stern.nyu.edu/networks/telco96.html
In the 1990s, the telecommunications market was rapidly changing with the addition of new entrants from a competition standpoint that were forcing WorldCom to decrease prices. Long term leases for
On any given day in 2015, you would be hard-pressed to walk into a room at random in America without encountering a Smart Phone. There is hardly a library left that does not feature a quiet chorus of clicking keyboards from the laptops within. We are, in essence, permanently plugged in to the Great and Powerful Internet, and we rely on service providers (ISP’s) to provide us with this now-important resource. Lately, though, getting Internet is becoming less and less simple as folks debate the enforcement of Internet— or “net”— neutrality in the United States. There are a lot of inflated egos arguing back and forth on the subject, and the phrase “net neutrality” is becoming widely recognized amongst every day Internet users. But how many of these people actually get what is going on, here? What is net neutrality, and why are household net surfers and economists alike getting
On the contrary, the general public may argue that net neutrality is unnecessary because government control and regulation of the internet will provide a safer environment for users. According to M.C. Riley, “ISPs —instead of users— chose that lawful content, applications and services can be exchanged, offered and utilized. Existing possible services might become largely inoperable, and new services might thank never get off the ground, particularly if they compete with services offered by network operators” (Cleland and Riley 22). In the absence of net neutrality, ISPs can control and regulate content on the Internet, resulting on certain services becoming inoperable. Government control and regulation of the internet has provided a safer environment
In 2015, they confirmed the net neutrality rules of no blocking, throttling, and no paid prioritization. In 2017, the FCC announced that it wanted to reverse the open internet legislation. In 2018, the democratic party brought the issue to the capitol. This issue is still raging in the media and the government today with people fighting on both sides heavily for and against the net neutrality debate. The main people for getting rid of net neutrality are the big internet companies like Comcast and AT&T. This would allow them to make more money for fast lanes for big name content providers. Also, the FCC would like to remove the rules from internet providers to allow them to act more like the cable network. With the cable TV network on the decline, the new rules would be a new high-income source for the government. As I stated earlier, big-name content providers are against dropping these rules for the fact that they know they will have to pay high fees to keep their content available. Changing current neutrality laws would hurt things like Xbox live, PSN, Netflix, and Skype which require high bandwidth to work correctly. Consumers that want to keep net neutrality like Irwin, a writer for the New York times, states getting rid of net neutrality will cause an upswing in the