FCC commissioners divided Thursday on a vote to reestablish net neutrality rules, during the agency's first open meeting with a full commission since Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel took the helm (see 2310130051). Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington voted against an NPRM seeking comment on a proposal to return to 2015 rules that classified broadband as a Title II telecom service.
Relative to the epic battles preceding the FCC’s last two votes on net neutrality rules, in 2015 and 2017, things have been relatively quiet on net neutrality since Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced she would seek a vote on an NPRM Oct. 19 (see 2309260047). There have statements for and against, but nothing compared with the fights of the past, industry observers told us.
NTIA sided with consumer groups and urged the FCC to adopt a broad definition of digital discrimination to include disparate treatment and disparate impact. In a filing posted Friday in docket 22-69, the agency said the commission should also consider actions complying with its broadband, equity, access and deployment program to be "considered presumptively lawful under the digital discrimination rules."
The 2024 presidential election shouldn’t, and likely won’t, deter FCC Democrats from moving forward on their policy agenda now that they're on the cusp of a 3-2 majority well over two years into President Joe Biden’s term, said lawmakers and former commission officials in interviews. Many expect a flurry of FCC activity once Democrat Anna Gomez, confirmed by the Senate earlier this month, formally signs on as a commissioner 2309070081). Multiple FCC-watchers and former officials pooh-poohed the conventional wisdom that the agency avoids major, controversial actions during election years.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision last week in the student loan case, Biden v. Nebraska, didn’t touch on communications law, but it delves deeper into the "major questions doctrine" laid out a year ago in West Virginia v. EPA (see 2206300066). Legal experts told us the opinion, by Chief Justice John Roberts, appears to further expand when the doctrine may apply and moves the court further away from the Chevron doctrine. The case also has implications for the most controversial items addressed by the FCC, including net neutrality, experts said.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision last week in the student loan case, Biden v. Nebraska, didn’t touch on communications law, but it delves deeper into the "major questions doctrine" laid out a year ago in West Virginia v. EPA (see 2206300066). Legal experts told us the opinion, by Chief Justice John Roberts, appears to further expand when the doctrine may apply and moves the court further away from the Chevron doctrine. The case also has implications for the most controversial items addressed by the FCC, including net neutrality, experts said.
FCC nominee Anna Gomez likely faces a relatively easy road to confirmation after avoiding any real trouble during her Senate Commerce Committee confirmation hearing last week (see 2306220067), industry officials and others told us. Gomez was careful throughout the panel, never committing outright to voting for reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service, while also stressing the importance of FCC oversight. Some observers questioned whether the Senate would be able to confirm any Democrat to the fifth FCC seat if the Gomez nomination fails.
FCC Administrative Law Judge Jane Halprin terminated the Standard/Tegna hearing proceeding, said an order Thursday in docket 22-162. Tegna and Cox Media Group withdrew from the proceeding last week, and Tegna filed the formal withdrawal of its transfer applications Wednesday. Standard said it's ready to continue litigating the matter. “It is not in the public interest to expend the time and resources to continue this hearing as an academic exercise,” wrote Halprin. The proceeding "is therefore terminated,” said the order.
The U.S. Supreme Court is difficult to predict, but lawyers see reason to believe the court will use an upcoming case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, to clarify the status of the Chevron doctrine, legal experts told us. The doctrine underlies the authority of independent agencies like the FCC and the FTC. The court last week agreed to hear the maritime case (docket 22-451). The court hasn’t cited Chevron for several years, though it continues to be cited by lower courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court is difficult to predict, but lawyers see reason to believe the court will use an upcoming case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, to clarify the status of the Chevron doctrine, legal experts told us. The doctrine underlies the authority of independent agencies like the FCC and the FTC. The court last week agreed to hear the maritime case (docket 22-451). The court hasn’t cited Chevron for several years, though it continues to be cited by lower courts.