National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services

Last updated

National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 29, 2005
Decided June 27, 2005
Full case nameNational Cable & Telecommunications Association, et al. v. Brand X Internet Services, et al.
Docket no. 04-277
Citations545 U.S. 967 ( more )
125 S. Ct. 2688; 162 L. Ed. 2d 820; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5018; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 482
Case history
PriorFCC order affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded, Brand X Internet Servs. v. FCC, 345 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2003); rehearing, rehearing en banc denied, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 8023 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2004); cert . granted, sub nom. Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 543 U.S. 1018(2004).
SubsequentOn remand, sub nom. Brand X Internet Servs. v. FCC, 435 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2006).
Holding
Per the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission is eligible for Chevron deference by the courts when routine regulatory decisions are challenged.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Breyer
ConcurrenceStevens
ConcurrenceBreyer
DissentScalia, joined by Souter, Ginsburg (part I)
Laws applied
Telecommunications Act of 1996

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. [1] 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. [2] [3]

Contents

Background

Per the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its predecessor the Communications Act of 1934, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is authorized to enforce regulations against new companies, products, and services in the telecommunications field by classifying them into one of several "titles" in the statute. At issue in this case are Title I and Title II of the 1996 Act. If the Commission classifies a given service under Title I in the statute, it is considered to be an "information service" and is subjected to relatively lenient economic regulations. If that service is classified under Title II, it is considered to be a "telecommunications service" and is subjected to much stricter common carrier regulations on the content of messages and prices charged to customers. [4]

With the advent of Internet service providers (ISPs) available to the general public in the 1990s, early services were provided via DSL by telephone companies that were subjected to traditional Title II regulations. Later cable modem service was typically provided by cable TV companies that were subjected to traditional, and less restrictive, Title I regulations. [4] The FCC classified cable modem Internet service as an "information service" in 2002. [5] Until 2005, when DSL services were also classified as information services, [6] this resulted in a confusing situation in which different types of ISPs were subjected to different levels of telecommunications regulation by the FCC. [7]

After the 2002 classification decision, Brand X, a DSL-based ISP, requested judicial review because it had been subjected to tougher regulations than many of its competitors based on network delivery method (telephone vs. cable) rather than quality of service or customer satisfaction. [8]

The case was initially heard at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under the name Brand X Internet Services v. FCC. That court ruled that the 2002 classification decision by the FCC, in which cable modem was determined to be an "information service", was in error. [9] That was because cable modem service had already been confirmed as a "telecommunications service" under the 1996 Act (and therefore eligible for stricter regulations) in the Ninth Circuit precedent AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland in 2000. [10]

The FCC believed that the Circuit Court should not have second-guessed its regulatory decision, and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. [1] Meanwhile, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), an industry trade group that favored the lesser regulations under the "information service" classification, joined the suit.

Opinion of the court

The case was accepted by the Supreme Court under the new title National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services. The Supreme Court, in an unexpected act, [7] decided to review the dispute not as a matter of precedent (as the Circuit Court did) but as a matter of judicial deference to the expertise of an administrative agency. In particular, the administrative law principle of Chevron deference dictates that when a statute passed by Congress instructs an agency like the FCC on how to regulate its field of expertise, if that statute was written in an ambiguous and open-ended fashion, this indicates that Congress intended the agency to exercise its expertise on a case-by-case basis. Subsequently, whenever an agency regulatory decision is challenged in court, judges should assume that agency personnel are experts on the topic and the best qualified to assess the issue at hand. Thus, judges should defer to the agency's expertise and not second-guess its decisions. [11]

Brand X argued that when the agency decision is clearly in error, Chevron deference should not apply. The company argued that Internet service should be classified as a "telecommunications service" under the 1996 Act, because this would subject all ISPs to the same regulations, thus leveling the playing field, while all would be considered common carriers with robust obligations to customers and to the public. [1]

The NCTA argued that the FCC's classification decision was correct because the 1996 Act defines "information service" as "the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing", all of which could be used to describe cable modem Internet service. The NCTA was in favor of judicial deference toward the FCC's decision, arguing that the agency's regulators, rather than judges, possessed the required expertise on the matter. [1]

Ruling

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 enabled the FCC to make classification decisions within certain parameters, but Congress included enough ambiguity and vagueness to support the assumption that it intended the FCC to handle such decisions on a flexible and case-by-case basis. [12] Thus, the court concluded that Chevron deference was merited, and upheld the FCC's decision to classify DSL services and cable modem services differently. [1] In an unusual procedural twist, this overturned the Circuit Court ruling, not out of disagreement but under the decision to approach the matter via judicial deference rather than the rule of precedent. [7] The main question before the court also soon became moot, because the classification of DSL services and cable modem services was aligned when, in 2005, the FCC decided to reclassify DSL as an information service. [6]

In an influential dissenting opinion, [7] Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with the FCC's characterizations of "telecommunications service" and "information service" in all of the relevant classification decisions. Scalia concluded that these decisions created an untenable situation in the ISP marketplace, with different companies being subjected to different levels of regulation, but ultimately placed the blame on Congress for its poor construction of the 1996 Act, which in turn hobbled the FCC's ability to regulate new technologies and markets. [1] [7]

Impact

Deference to FCC regulations

The Brand X ruling is often cited in critiques of outdated telecommunications policy in the United States, as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is unable to address new technologies that arose after its passage, and saddles the FCC with procedures based on old technologies. [4] [13] Due to convergence in the industry, previous network delivery methods and data protocols (e.g. Internet data and voice telephone calls) came together in new forms while the FCC is forced to regulate each new service under rules written by Congress for older technologies and network architectures. [14] This in turn requires the FCC to formulate confusing arguments to justify its classification decisions, while courts must embark on equally confusing analyses to determine if such classifications comply with the law. [7] [15]

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has criticized the Brand X ruling's dependence on judicial deference, stating in two dissenting opinions for unrelated cases that the decision "has taken this Court to the precipice of administrative absolutism. Under its rule of deference, agencies are free to invent new (purported) interpretations of statutes and then require courts to reject their own prior interpretations." Thomas has suggested that the Supreme Court should revisit Brand X, because he now sees the ruling as "inconsistent with the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and traditional tools of statutory interpretation." [16]

Chevron deference was overturned in June 2024 in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , ruling that such deference was inconsistent with separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. This created uncertainty on the usefulness of Brand X as a precedent on FCC authority in future disputes on how to regulate Internet Service Providers. [17] [18]

Network neutrality

Brand X is considered an important precedent in the debate over the regulation of network neutrality in the United States, as it established that the FCC has the authority to classify Internet service as either an "information service" or a "telecommunications service" based on network delivery methods, rather than customer satisfaction or other public interest-oriented concerns. [7] The inflexible classification process became a crucial issue in later years when the FCC attempted to penalize non-neutral behavior by ISPs via existing regulations within the "information service" or "telecommunications service" designations. However, the lack of a statutory process allowing flexibility in those decisions, or handling objections to them, resulted in numerous and inconsistent court rulings on the matter of net neutrality regulation, including Comcast Corp. v. FCC , Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC , and United States Telecom Association v. FCC . This has resulted in some clarification of the FCC's regulatory classification process, [19] but also created an unresolved conflict over whether and how the Commission has the authority to regulate network neutrality. [20] That conundrum remains unresolved as of 2024. [21]

Related Research Articles

A common carrier in common law countries is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport. A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it. The regulatory body may create, interpret, and enforce its regulations upon the common carrier with independence and finality as long as it acts within the bounds of the enabling legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet service provider</span> Organization that provides access to the Internet

An Internet service provider (ISP) is an organization that provides myriad services related to accessing, using, managing, or participating in the Internet. ISPs can be organized in various forms, such as commercial, community-owned, non-profit, or otherwise privately owned.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet access</span> Individual connection to the Internet

Internet access is a facility or service that provides connectivity for a computer, a computer network, or other network device to the Internet, and for individuals or organizations to access or use applications such as email and the World Wide Web. Internet access is offered for sale by an international hierarchy of Internet service providers (ISPs) using various networking technologies. At the retail level, many organizations, including municipal entities, also provide cost-free access to the general public. Types of connections range from fixed-line cable to mobile and satellite.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Net neutrality</span> Principle that Internet service providers should treat all data equally

Network neutrality, often referred to as net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, offering users and online content providers consistent transfer rates regardless of content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication. Net neutrality was advocated for in the 1990s by the presidential administration of Bill Clinton in the United States. Clinton's signing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934, set a worldwide example for net neutrality laws and the regulation of ISPs.

A naked DSL, also known as standalone or dry loop DSL, is a digital subscriber line (DSL) without a PSTN service — or the associated dial tone. In other words, only a standalone DSL Internet service is provided on the local loop.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test used when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". Chevron deference consisted of a two-part test that was deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute".

In the United States, net neutrality—the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should make no distinctions between different kinds of content on the Internet, and to not discriminate based on such distinctions—has been an issue of contention between end-users and ISPs since the 1990s. With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge different rates for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block specific types of content, while charging consumers different rates for that content.

<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.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">TekSavvy</span>

TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (TSI) is a Canadian residential, business, and wholesale telecommunications company based in Chatham, Ontario. In most of the country, it is a wholesale-network-access-based service provider and voice reseller, connecting its service to existing last mile networks from telecom carriers Bell Canada and Telus Communications, and cable carriers Rogers Communications, Cogeco Cable, Shaw and Vidéotron. However, in parts of rural southwestern Ontario, the service is provided over TekSavvy's own fixed wireless network. Recently they have also rolled out their own fibre optic network in parts of southwestern Ontario.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tom Wheeler</span> American businessman and politician (born 1946)

Thomas Edgar Wheeler is an American businessman and former government official. A member of the Democratic Party, he served as the 31st Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

<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.

Net neutrality law refers to laws and regulations which enforce the principle of net neutrality.

<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.

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a Supreme Court of the United States case addressing overtime pay. Specifically at issue is whether automotive service advisors are eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

"Net Neutrality" is the first segment devoted to net neutrality in the United States of the HBO news satire television series Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. It aired for 13 minutes on June 1, 2014, as part of the fifth episode of Last Week Tonight's first season.

Net neutrality is the principle that governments should mandate Internet service providers to treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

<i>Mozilla Corp. v. FCC</i> 2019 American court case

Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F. 3d 1 was a ruling the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2019 related to net neutrality in the United States. The case centered on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s decision in 2017 to rollback its prior 2015 Open Internet Order, reclassifying Internet services as an information service rather than as a common carrier, deregulating principles of net neutrality that had been put in place with the 2015 order. The proposed rollback had been publicly criticized during the open period of discussion, and following the FCC's issuing of the rollback, several states and Internet companies sued the FCC. These cases were consolidated into the one led by the Mozilla Corporation.

Comcast Cablevision of Broward County, Inc. v. Broward County, Florida, 124 F.Supp.2d 685, was a ruling at the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over the constitutionality of a local ordinance requiring an Internet service provider to share its physical network with competitors. The ruling is often cited as an important early precedent on the matter of network neutrality and the free speech rights of Internet service providers.

<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 National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005).
  2. ↑ Meyer, Robinson (May 16, 2014). "Antonin Scalia Totally Gets Net Neutrality" . The Atlantic. Archived from the original on November 27, 2022. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
  3. ↑ Brodkin, Jon (February 26, 2020). "Clarence Thomas regrets ruling that Ajit Pai used to kill net neutrality". Ars Technica. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
  4. 1 2 3 Grebel, Mark B. (Winter 2007). "The Telecommunications Act and Statutory Interpretation: National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services". Saint Louis University Law Journal. 51 (489–520): 489–520 – via HeinOnline.
  5. ↑ "FCC Classifies Cable Modem Service as "Information Service"last=". FCC. March 14, 2002. Retrieved December 2, 2017.
  6. 1 2 "FCC 05-150" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 5, 2024.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Frieden, Rob (2006). "What Do Pizza Delivery and Information Services Have in Common - Lessons from Recent Judicial and Regulatory Struggles with Convergence". Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal. 32 (2): 247–296 – via HeinOnline.
  8. ↑ "On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Communications Commission" (PDF). FindLaw. October 6, 2003. Retrieved December 2, 2017.
  9. ↑ Brand X Internet Services. v. FCC, 345 F. 3d 1120 (9th Cir., 2003).
  10. ↑ AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F. 3d 871 (9th Cir., 2000).
  11. ↑ Brannon, Valerie C.; Cole, Jared P. (September 19, 2017). "Chevron Deference: A Primer". Congressional Research Service– via HeinOnline.
  12. ↑ Zahn, Thomas E. (2006). "Settled No More: An Administrative Agency May Overturn Prior Judicial Interpretation of a Statute within Its Jurisdiction So Long as the Statutory Language Is Ambiguous: National Cable & Telecommunications Association, et al. v. Brand X Internet Services, et al". Duquesne Business Law Journal. 8: 143–168 – via HeinOnline.
  13. ↑ Manni, David P. (2006). "National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services: A War of Words, the Effect of Classifying Cable Modem Service as an Information Service". Villanova Sports & Entertainment Law Journal. 13 (2): 353–390 – via HeinOnline.
  14. ↑ Signaigo, Amy L. (Spring 2007). "National Cable &(and) Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services: Resolving Irregularities in Regulation". Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. 5 (2): 385–399 – via HeinOnline.
  15. ↑ Cohen, Jay T. (2006). "A Supreme Choice between the Blue Pill and the Red Pill: Brand X Internet Services v. FCC". Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. 8: 189–206 – via HeinOnline.
  16. ↑ Brodkin, Jon (February 26, 2020). "Clarence Thomas regrets ruling that Ajit Pai used to kill net neutrality". Ars Technica . Retrieved February 27, 2020.
  17. ↑ Brokin, Jon (June 28, 2024). "SCOTUS kills Chevron deference, giving courts more power to block federal rules". Ars Technica .
  18. ↑ Neenan, Jake (July 17, 2024). "FCC's Carr: Loper Bright 'Directionally a Really Good Thing'". Broadband Breakfast. Retrieved December 5, 2024.
  19. ↑ Wright, Christopher J. (December 2014). "The Scope of the FCC's Ancillary Jurisdiction after the D.C. Crcuit's Net Neutrality Decisions". Federal Communications Law Journal. 67 (1): 19–40 – via HeinOnline.
  20. ↑ Terry, Christopher; Memmel, Scott; Turacek, Ashley (2019). "Lost in a Novelty Mug: U. S. Telecom, the FCC, and Policy Resolution for Net Neutrality". Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal. 41 (1): 1–34 – via HeinOnline.
  21. ↑ Patel, Nilay (November 3, 2022). "The mystery of Biden's deadlocked FCC". The Verge. Retrieved November 6, 2022.
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.