> The 2015 rules the FCC pushed forward by saying they were considered "common carriers" under the 1934 Communications act
More precisely, “telecommunications carriers” under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which substsntially revised and restructured the 1934 Communications Act; the 1996 Act specifies that telecommunication carriers are, when acting as telecommunication carriers, common carriers.
> The political theory around the FCC hasn't been updated sufficiently, they were mandated to deal with telephone lines and much of their control over the internet is based on vague interpretation.
Their authority over the internet is based on a law adopted in 1996 whose major motivations included updating the 1934 Act to cover modern communications including the internet.
>Their authority over the internet is based on a law adopted in 1996 whose major motivations included updating the 1934 Act to cover modern communications including the internet.
The 96 update specifically lays out another class, information carriers, meant for things like broadband, that aren't regulated as common carriers. It did not see internet access essentially replacing cable and phone access, and did not explicitly give the FCC the authority currently needed.
> The 96 update specifically lays out another class, information carriers
“information services”.
> meant for things like broadband
Both “information services” and “telecommunication services” (the provision of the latter of which
, other than in aggregated form, makes one a “telecommunication carrier”; there is no “information carrier”) have defined criteria in the Act. [0] The core of the dispute will be, really, your claim that “information service” is “meant for things like broadband”; the definitions, BTW, specifically recognize overlap between the basic categories and specifically note that to the extent there is overlap, the “telecommunication service” classification prevails.
The classification of broadband as an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service" has been shown to be valid in a 2005 Supreme Court case. The law should have been updated to make it clear that ISP's are common carriers after that ruling.
> The classification of broadband as an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service" has been shown to be valid in a 2005 Supreme Court case.
The classification of cable modem service in the specific factual context surrounding the way it was found by the court to be provided, used, and perceived by users at the time as an “information service” by the FCC was upheld in NCTA v. Brand X as sufficiently well-supported by factual evidence referenced in the FCC docket supporting the classification to be allowed to stand given the usual deference due administrative decisions.
The factual circumstances have changed since 2005, the rulemaking record is different, and, the Supreme Court has several new justices, at least one of whom (Neil Gorsuch) has a past judicial record suggesting a much more narrow view of Chevron deference to start with.
I don't understand your point. The current law isn't clear enough, and should have been amended a long time ago to make this a non issue. That this case might work isn't the point, this case shouldn't be necessary.
> The classification of broadband as an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service" has been shown to be valid in a 2005 Supreme Court case.
It's really invalid. What makes sense is to treat Internet services like information services, and actual Internet access service as telecommunication service. I.e. Internet is the medium of transferring information, same as telephone lines are. And services that go through it are already information services (think e-mail provider).
Turning ISPs into information services was their crooked and clearly illogical step to avoiding regulation.
More precisely, “telecommunications carriers” under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which substsntially revised and restructured the 1934 Communications Act; the 1996 Act specifies that telecommunication carriers are, when acting as telecommunication carriers, common carriers.
> The political theory around the FCC hasn't been updated sufficiently, they were mandated to deal with telephone lines and much of their control over the internet is based on vague interpretation.
Their authority over the internet is based on a law adopted in 1996 whose major motivations included updating the 1934 Act to cover modern communications including the internet.