Notice & Comment

Results for: "net neutrality"

Notice & Comment

Randolph J. May on Mass Comments and the FCC’s Net Neutrality Proceedings (ACUS Update)

As I noted yesterday, ACUS’s newly adopted Recommendation 2021-1, Managing Mass, Computer-Generated, and Falsely Attributed Comments generated three separate statements.  Separate statements are permitted by the Administrative Conference Act (5 U.S.C. 595(a)(1)) and the agency’s bylaws (Section 302.6(d)(1)). They are relatively rare and typically used to register disagreement with a recommendation the Assembly has voted to […]

Notice & Comment

FCC’s “Final Agency Action” to Restore Internet Freedom Preempts State Net Neutrality Laws, by Seth L. Cooper

Pursuant to the Constitution’s Article VI Supremacy Clause, federal laws and regulations preempt conflicting state laws. But may state laws be preempted when they clash with a federal policy of nonregulation? The answer to that question may well determine whether the Federal Communications Commission’s 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order (RIF Order) preempts state net neutrality […]

Notice & Comment

Communications/International Law: U.K. Ofcom Issues Consultation Paper on Net Neutrality, by Jonathan Rusch

On June 24, Ofcom, the independent regulator and competition authority for the United Kingdom communications industries, issued a consultation paper on traffic management and net neutrality. An Ofcom statement reported that the purpose of the consultation paper is to open up a discussion on how existing and future powers “might be used to address traffic […]

Notice & Comment

Chevron’s Latest Step, by Nicholas Bednar

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that the emission limits adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Clean Power Plan exceeded the agency’s authority, because the Clean Air Act did not clearly authorize the agency to “restructure the American energy market.” Ordinarily, courts would review the interpretive issue under the […]

Notice & Comment

Richard J. Pierce, Jr. on the Harmful Public Misperception that Rulemaking is a Plebiscite (ACUS Update)

Over the past two days, I’ve posted a mini-symposium of separate statements filed by ACUS members in response to Recommendation 2021-1, Managing Mass, Computer-Generated, and Falsely Attributed Comments. The third and final contribution comes from Senior Fellow Richard J. Pierce, Jr. (GW Law) (it is an abbreviated version of a statement that is on the ACUS website): […]

Notice & Comment

Nina A. Mendelson on the Value of Comments from Individual Members of the Public (ACUS Update)

Yesterday, I posted the first of three separate statements filed by ACUS members in response to Recommendation 2021-1, Managing Mass, Computer-Generated, and Falsely Attributed Comments. The second statement comes from Senior Fellow Nina A. Mendelson (Michigan Law): This Recommendation, the product of much hard work, will help guide agencies managing mass comments and addressing falsely attributed […]

Notice & Comment

Beware of Calls for a New Digital Regulator, by Dr. George S. Ford

Motivated largely by the “Techlash” against the digital platform giants like Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google along with the Net Neutrality debate implicating Internet service providers (“ISPs”) like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, there is a growing concern that the nation’s antitrust laws and regulatory institutions are ill-suited for the Digital Age.  What is needed, some say, […]

Notice & Comment

Involuntary Volunteers at the FCC, by Randolph J. May

Back in March 2000, I published an essay in Legal Times titled, “Any Volunteers?” The piece argued that the Federal Communications Commission’s merger review process is often tainted by the agency’s extraction of so-called “voluntary” conditions from merger applicants during the agency’s consideration of a proposed transaction. Now, two decades later, the Court of Appeals […]

Notice & Comment

A Comment on Aaron Nielson’s Latest “Sticky Regulations” Article, by Randolph May

In his forthcoming Hastings Law Journal article, Sticky Regulations and Net Neutrality Restoring Internet Freedom, Aaron Nielson argues, correctly I think, that “[s]tickiness allows regulated parties to invest with greater confidence that they will be able to recoup their investment over the long run – which enhanced investment in turn better allows agencies to pursue […]

Notice & Comment

D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed: Sticky Regulations and N̶e̶t̶ ̶N̶e̶u̶t̶r̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ Restoring Internet Freedom UPDATED

The D.C. Circuit today is in Utah! In about an hour, Judges Garland, Griffith, and Rao will visit BYU Law (where I teach) to judge the law school’s annual Rex E. Lee Moot Court Competition Finals. That doesn’t happen every day.* Because my day will be spent hosting, this post will be quick. But have […]