1 / 11

FCC's Authority on Internet Service Regulation and Network Management Practices

This document discusses the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policy statement from August 2005 regarding the regulation of telecommunications carriers and information service providers under Title II of the Communications Act. It emphasizes that while the FCC has jurisdiction to impose regulations to ensure neutral Internet access, its authority over network management practices of Internet service providers (ISPs) is limited. The policy aims to promote open Internet principles, consumer choice in accessing content, applications, and devices, and competition among service providers.

lonna
Télécharger la présentation

FCC's Authority on Internet Service Regulation and Network Management Practices

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Federal Communications Commission Policy Statement Adopted Aug. 5, 2005 Released: Sept. 25, 2005

  2. II.4. The Communications Act regulates telecommunications carriers, as common carriers, under Title II. Information service providers, “by contrast, are not subject to mandatory common-carrier regulation under Title II.”* *NCTA v. Brand X

  3. II.4. (continued) The Commission, however, “has jurisdiction to impose additional regulatory obligations under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction to regulate interstate and foreign communications.”* *NCTA v. Brand X

  4. II.4. (continued) As a result, the Commission has jurisdiction necessary to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol-enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner.

  5. II.4. [principle 1] To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;

  6. II.4. [principle 2] consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet,

  7. II.4. [principle 3] consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet,

  8. II.4. [principle 4] consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet,

  9. COMCAST CORPORATION, PETITIONER v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS NBC UNIVERSAL, ET AL., INTERVENORS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 600 F.3d 642; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7039; 49 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 1226 January 8, 2010, Argued April 6, 2010, Decided

  10. COMCAST v. FCC In this case we must decide whether the Federal Communications Commission has authority to regulate an Internet service provider's network management practices. ... JUDGES: Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, TATEL, Circuit Judge, and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL.

  11. COMCAST v. FCC ... under Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit case law statements of policy, by themselves, do not create "statutorily mandated responsibilities." The Commission also relies on various provisions of the Communications Act that do create such responsibilities, but for a variety of substantive and procedural reasons those provisions cannot support its exercise of ancillary authority over Comcast's network management practices. We therefore grant Comcast's petition for review and vacate the challenged order.

More Related