|
FunkyFjord posted:Unjust and unreasonable discrimination could easily be part of a commercially-unreasonable test right? The issue is the words signal different kinds of tests with different deference to the agency. Under the test for common carriers, the FCC could make a blanket ruling on prioritization deals. i.e. "Pay for priority systems are generally unreasonable." Under the latter, it's going to have to examine the particular prioritization deal using some kind of more flexible test. The article doesn't like that, because it necessarily means there's some kind of prioritization deals that can survive. The FCC Chairman is saying the test they will come up with won't be letting much through and any deals which do survive will be benign. The distinction is coming from some key language from Cellco, the case repeatedly cited in Verizon when saying "do it like this". The DC Circuit distinguished between standards that turn a carrier into a common carrier, and standards that, although they might be something that the FCC would apply to common carriers, do not of themselves turn a carrier into a common carrier. Forcing general, nondiscriminatory offers sounds like the former, flexible tests allowing room for individualized negotiation sound like the latter. If you're curious about the factors determining what is "commercially reasonable" under the other rule, they are the bullet points on page 42 here. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Apr 30, 2014 |
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
The vote happened. It doesn't seem like the actual text is released yet, but the press releases are out.quote:The FCC proposes to rely on a legal blueprint set out by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in its January decision in Verizon v. FCC, using the FCC’s authority to promote broadband deployment to all Americans under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. At the same time, the Commission will seriously consider using its authority under the telecommunications regulation found in Title II of the Communications Act. In addition, the Notice:
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Right, didn't mean to imply otherwise. When I said text I meant to be talking about the text of the notice. Which has since been put up here.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Came across this article that basically claims the FCC will lose like the EPA did and for the same reasons: quote:The question before us is whether EPA's decision to require BACT for greenhouse gases emitted by sources otherwise subject to PSD review is, as a general matter, a permissible interpretation of the statute under Chevron. We conclude that it is.  EPA won some and lost some in that one. Regardless, I don't really see how the positions of the agencies are comparable. What EPA lost on was interpreting a term in a way that generated a result that couldn't work, and issuing a rule where they just used their own numbers instead of the ones in the statute that didn't work. What they specifically didn't have was what the FCC has in its back pocket: explicit statutory authorization to not apply some regulations if they make certain determinations. Hell, the Clean Air Act lets private citizens sue to enforce the thing if EPA doesn't. Very different circumstances. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 01:02
|
|