Consumers' Research v. Federal Communications Commission

Last updated
Consumers' Research v. Federal Communications Commission
US-CourtOfAppeals-6thCircuit-Seal.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Full case name Consumers' Research: Cause Based Commerce, Inc.; Joseph Bayly; Jeremy Roth; Deanna Roth; Lynn Gibbs; Paul Gibbs: petitioners v. Federal Communications Commission, United States of America: respondents
DecidedMay 4, 2023
CitationsConsumers' Research v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 21-3886 (6th Cir. May 4, 2023)
Court membership
Judges sitting Karen Nelson Moore, Eric L. Clay, Jane Branstetter Stranch
Case opinions
Affirmed 3-0 that the Federal Communications Commission's universal service funding program is constitutional.

Consumers' Research v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 21-3886 (2023), was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, on a challenge by Consumers' Research, a free-market advocacy organization, against the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Fund program. The ruling was one of several at various American courts brought by the same litigants; the Sixth Circuit was the first to rule that the funding program does not violate the United States Constitution. [1]

Contents

Background

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) administers a universal service program, as authorized by Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. All telephone service customers in the United States pay a monthly fee, and the resulting Universal Service Fund is used by the FCC to subsidize discounts for financially disadvantaged subscribers, build network infrastructure in underserved areas. connect rural hospitals, and support computer labs at public schools and libraries. [2] [3] The fund's budget had reached as high as $10 billion per year by the 2020s. [4] The fund is administered by a quasi-private entity called the Universal Service Administration Company (USAC). [1]

The Universal Service Fund has generated controversy among government watchdogs and fiscal conservatives due to its apparent waste. Critics have questioned whether billions of dollars per year are still necessary to advance the FCC's goals of filling gaps in the American telephone network and assisting disadvantaged consumers. [5] The commission's management of the funds is lightly regulated with little oversight from other parts of the American government. [6] The funds are allocated inefficiently among various types of communications networks, with a focus on landline telephone services as opposed to others that are more popular with, or needed by, modern consumers. [7]

Other critics have accused the FCC of forwarding funds to private corporations to build network infrastructure, but with insufficient oversight of whether those companies use the funds in the public interest. [8] There have been several documented cases of fraud in the use of such funds, both by private companies that build infrastructure, and by the recipients of government assistance such as schools. [9] By the late 2010s, the universal service program became a matter of geopolitical and national security concern as well, with some politicians questioning whether funds should subsidize purchases of network components from foreign telecommunications companies of concern, particularly those from China. [10]

In 2023, Consumers' Research, a free-market advocacy organization, filed suit in the Fifth, [11] Sixth, [1] Eleventh, [12] and District of Columbia Circuit Courts [13] on behalf of telephone consumers in each respective region. The group claimed that the FCC's universal service program should be struck down as an unconstitutional delegation of fundraising functions from Congress to the commission, [14] and that allowing the USAC to administer the program's finances was an unconstitutional transfer of government power to the private sector. [12]

The Sixth Circuit proceeding was the first in which a ruling was reached.

Sixth Circuit opinion

The Sixth Circuit reviewed the complaint in March 2023. [1] The court focused on the legality of the FCC's universal service program as authorized by law in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 254 of that act requires the structures of fee collection and budgetary oversight by the FCC that are at issue in the complaint. [1] The use of the quasi-private USAC had already been held as constitutional by the D.C. Circuit in 2012. [15]

Given the "intelligible principle" laid out in the 1996 Act, Congress had intended the FCC to act as it then did in subsequent years when administering the universal service program, and those clear instructions from Congress negated arguments about delegation of power to the commission. [1] Per Supreme Court precedent, due to the complexity of governmental functions, no constitutional violation exists "so long as Congress provides an administrative agency with standards guiding its actions such that a court could ascertain whether the will of Congress has been obeyed." [16] The universal service charge for consumers was also found to be a fee and not a tax, again reducing the applicability of the nondelgation doctrine because only the direct collection of taxes by the government are a matter of constitutional authority. [1]

Thus, the Sixth Circuit rejected the Consumers' Research arguments about the constitutionality of the FCC's universal service program. [13]

Impact and subsequent events

In September 2023, related litigation at the Fifth Circuit also resulted in the rejection of the Consumers' Research delegation argument, [11] [13] though some judges questioned whether the FCC's universal service program may still violate the Constitution, on the grounds that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 neglected to set clear limits on how much money the commission could raise. [4] [17] The Eleventh Circuit also rejected the Consumers' Research argument in December 2023, concluding that the universal service program was legal per the instructions from Congress in the 1996 Act. [12]

In late 2023, Consumers' Research appealed its losses at the Fifth and Sixth Circuits to the United States Supreme Court, with additional arguments on separation of powers, oversight of government funds, and the FCC's ability to manage such a budget under the major questions doctrine. [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Communications Commission</span> Independent U.S. government agency

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the areas of broadband access, fair competition, radio frequency use, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Communications Act of 1934</span> 1934 U.S. federal law creating the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

The Communications Act of 1934 is a United States federal law signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 19, 1934, and codified as Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The act replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It also transferred regulation of interstate telephone services from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the FCC.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991</span> U.S. federal law

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) was passed by the United States Congress in 1991 and signed into law by President George H. W. Bush as Public Law 102-243. It amended the Communications Act of 1934. The TCPA is codified as 47 U.S.C. § 227. The TCPA restricts telephone solicitations and the use of automated telephone equipment. The TCPA limits companies or debt collectors from calling clients or prospective customers using automatic dialing systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text messages, and fax machines. It also specifies several technical requirements for fax machines, autodialers, and voice messaging systems—principally with provisions requiring identification and contact information of the entity using the device to be contained in the message.

The United States Telecom Association (USTelecom) is an organization that represents telecommunications-related businesses based in the United States. As a trade association, it represent the converged interests of the country's telecommunications industry. Member companies represent a diverse set of communications-related businesses, including those that provide wireless, Internet, cable television, long distance, local exchange, and voice services. Members include large publicly traded communications carriers as well as small telephone cooperatives that serve only a few hundred customers in urban and rural areas. The organization was founded as the Independent Telephone Association of America in 1897, and represented the telecommunication industry of North America that was not affiliated with the Bell System led by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Children's Internet Protection Act</span> United States federal law

The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is one of a number of bills that the United States Congress proposed to limit children's exposure to pornography and explicit content online.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on how to regulate Internet service providers are eligible for Chevron deference, in which the judiciary defers to an administrative agency's expertise under its governing statutes. While the case concerned routine regulatory processes at the FCC and applied to interpretations of the Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996, the ruling has become an important precedent on the matter of regulating network neutrality in the United States.

E-Rate is the commonly used name for the Schools and Libraries Program of the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The program provides discounts to assist schools and libraries in the United States to obtain affordable telecommunications and internet access. It is one of four support programs funded through a universal service fee charged to companies that provide interstate and/or international telecommunications services.

The Universal Service Fund (USF) is a system of telecommunications subsidies and fees managed by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promote universal access to telecommunications services in the United States. The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Originally designed to subsidize telephone service, since 2011 the fund has expanded its goals to supporting broadband universal service. The Universal Service Fund's budget ranges from $5–8 billion per year depending on the needs of the telecommunications providers. These needs include the cost to maintain the hardware needed for their services and the services themselves. In 2022 disbursements totaled $7.4 billion, split across the USF's four main programs: $2.1 billion for the E-rate program, $4.2 billion for the high-cost program, $0.6 billion for the Lifeline program, and $0.5 billion for the rural health care program.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet in the United States</span>

The Internet in the United States grew out of the ARPANET, a network sponsored by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense during the 1960s. The Internet in the United States of America in turn provided the foundation for the worldwide Internet of today.

Greenlight is a bundled telecommunications service owned by the city of Wilson, North Carolina. Its services are distributed over a fiber-optic network that was constructed by the city. The service has attracted attention because of the controversy surrounding its competition with Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Broadband mapping in the United States</span>

Broadband mapping in the United States are efforts to describe geographically how Internet access service from telephone and cable TV companies is available in terms of available speed and price. Mapping has been done on the national as well as the state level. The efforts are seen as preliminary steps towards broadband universal service.

<i>Comcast Corp. v. FCC</i> 2010 US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia case

Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642, is a case at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia holding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have ancillary jurisdiction over the content delivery choices of Internet service providers, under the language of the Communications Act of 1934. In so holding, the Court vacated a 2008 order issued by the FCC that asserted jurisdiction over network management policies and censured Comcast from interfering with its subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software. The case has been regarded as an important precedent on whether the FCC can regulate network neutrality.

<i>United States Telecom Association v. FCC</i> (2004)

United States Telecom Association v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, is the court case in which the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Federal Communications Commission's Triennial Review Order (TRO). The court's decision is based on the Telecommunications Act of 1996 section 251 which defines unbundled network elements (UNEs) for incumbent local exchange carriers and competitive local exchange carriers.

<i>Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC</i> (2014)

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 740 F.3d 623, was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacating portions of the FCC Open Internet Order of 2010, which the court determined could only be applied to common carriers and not to Internet service providers. The case was initiated by Verizon, which would have been subjected to the proposed FCC rules, though they had not yet gone into effect. The case has been regarded as an important precedent on whether the FCC can regulate network neutrality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2013</span> Proposed United States legislation

The Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2013 is a bill that would make a number of changes to procedures that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) follows in its rulemaking processes. The FCC would have to act in a more transparent way as a result of this bill, forced to accept public input about regulations. Although the FCC would be allowed to decide on its own transparency guidelines, it would have to report annually on how well it was meeting those guidelines. The FCC would also have to provide notice about rules it was writing and allow for comment.

<i>United States Telecom Association v. FCC</i> (2016)

United States Telecom Association v. FCC, 825 F. 3d 674, was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upholding an action by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the previous year in which broadband Internet was reclassified as a "telecommunications service" under the Communications Act of 1934, after which Internet service providers (ISPs) were required to follow common carrier regulations.

NTCA - The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) is a membership association with the goal of improving communications services in rural America. With a membership comprising over 850 independent rural American telecommunications companies in 46 states, NTCA provides training and employee benefit packages to its members. It also advocates rural issues to legislatures, including universal service, rural infrastructure, cybersecurity, telemedicine, and consumer protection.

Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the definition and function of auto dialers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) to send unsolicited text messages. In a unanimous decision based on statutory interpretation of the TCPA, the Supreme Court ruled that auto dialers are defined by their function to either store or produce telephone numbers from a random or sequential number generator.

Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, 541 U.S. 125 (2004), is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided on March 24, 2004. The case concerned the Federal Communications Commission’s ability to preempt state law under § 253(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

<i>AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland</i>

AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The ruling was an important early precedent on the regulation of local cable broadband networks, with the court finding that Federal Communications Commission regulations supersede those of local authorities.The ruling has also been cited as a precedent in network neutrality disputes.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ''Consumers' Research v. Federal Communications Commission'', No. 21-3886 (6th Cir., 2023).
  2. ↑ "Universal Service | Federal Communications Commission". www.fcc.gov. Retrieved 2024-01-18.
  3. ↑ Jayakar, K. (2009). Universal Service. In Schejter, A. (2009). And communications for all: A policy agenda for a new administration. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
  4. 1 2 Zoppo, Avalon (19 September 2023). "5th Circuit Seems Skeptical of FCC Telecom Fund's Constitutionality". National Law Journal. Retrieved 2024-01-18.
  5. ↑ Foley, Sean M. (1998). "The Brewing Controversy over Internet Service Providers and the Universal Service Fund: A Third Generation Interpretation of Section 254". CommLaw Conspectus. 6: 245–259 – via Columbia School of Law.
  6. ↑ McCarthy, Kieren (May 4, 2018). "FCC shifts its $8bn pot of gold, sparks fears of corporate money grab". The Register. Retrieved 2018-05-30.
  7. ↑ Frieden, Rob (July 30, 2012). "Killing with Kindness: Fatal Flaws in the $5.7 Billion Universal Service Funding Mission and What Should Be Done to Narrow the Digital Divide". SSRN   2119666.
  8. ↑ Nicosia, Mareesa. "Faster Internet at School: What's Next for $4 Billion E-rate Fund Under New FCC Chief Ajit Pai?".
  9. ↑ Mcauliffe, Katie (2017-02-14). "Fraud still plagues the FCC's Universal Service Fund".
  10. ↑ Feinberg, Andrew (May 21, 2018). "ZTE Not Part of China Trade Talks, Will Not be Let off 'Scot-Free' if Export Ban is Lifted, Kudlow Says". Broadbandbreakfast.com. Retrieved May 30, 2018.
  11. 1 2 ''Consumers' Research v. Federal Communications Commission'', 63 F.4th 441 (5th Cir., 2023).
  12. 1 2 3 ''Consumers' Research v. Federal Communications Commission'', No. 22-13315 (11th Cir., 2023).
  13. 1 2 3 4 Umanah, Ufonobong (20 June 2023). "Tough Path for Challenge to FCC Broadband Fee Revenue". www.bloomberglaw.com. Retrieved 2024-01-18.
  14. ↑ Buehler, Katie (1 November 2023). "FCC Subsidy Challengers Take Fight To High Court". Law360. Retrieved 2024-01-18.
  15. ↑ Rural Cellular Association v. Federal Communications Commission, 685 F.3d 1083 (D.C. Cir., 2012).
  16. ↑ Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co., 490 U.S. 212 (S. Ct., 1989).
  17. ↑ Umanah, Ufonobong (18 September 2023). "FCC Broadband Subsidy Scheme to Get Another Look From 5th Cir". news.bloomberglaw.com. Retrieved 2024-01-18.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.