Ffc Court Case Summary

Nature of The Case: A petition of review and notice of appeal is filed against an order of the Federal Communications Committee to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

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

The Open Internet Order establishes two sets of “prophylactic rules” designed to “incorporate longstanding openness principles that are generally in line with current practices.” One set of rules applies to “fixed” broadband providers—i.e., those furnishing residential broadband service and, more generally, Internet access to end users “primarily at fixed end points using stationary equipment” Second, the Order imposes anti-blocking requirements on both types of broadband providers (13). Third, the Order imposes an anti-discrimination requirement on fixed broadband providers only (14). Verizon challenged the FCC claiming that they have over stepped their boundaries, and violated Verizon’s first amendment rights. That the FCC

Silberman, concurred that Open Internet Order does not allow subjects broadband providers to treatment as common carriers. However, he disagrees with the majority’s conclusion that § 706 otherwise provides the FCC with affirmative statutory authority to promulgate these rules (64).

Concise Rule Law: When there is an issue of implementing a new order, it is important to look at the statute of law. If there is an issue as far as debate of the statue of law, previous acts and regulations pertaining to the current issue should be reviewed in order to execute the jurisdiction.

Analysis/Meaning: This case is important to communication law because, by allowing the Federal Communications Committee to have the jurisdiction of implementing The Open Internet Order means the FCC would have a massive amount of power in society. I agree with the majority of the court’s ruling because it keeps the FCC still at a limited amount of power while maintaining authority in the communication world. This ruling benefits consumers and providers freedom of speech without the fear of the government restricting Internet usage. The FCC may continue to push for control content and regulating the Internet, but as seen in previous cases like Comcast Corp. v. FCC, the FCC failed to do so. With the statutes already in place and the language of the law, I believe that it will be hard for the FCC to accomplish this