Court case

US District Judge Thomas Durkin in Chicago ruled  a lawsuit filed by customers of AT&T and Verizon over T-Mobile’s acquisition of Sprint may proceed because the plaintiffs “plausibly” argued that higher prices “flowed directly” from the $26 billion merger. The proposed class action was filed in 2022 and seeks a range of penalties, including undoing the merger of Sprint and T-Mobile. The class-action suit was filed by seven AT&T and Verizon subscribers on behalf of millions of customers who were affected.

Charles Dickens opened A Tale of Two Cities writing that “It was the best of times, it was worst of times”. Therein may lie some helpful context for understanding where our country finds itself today. I don’t propose to cover the entire issues waterfront in this brief piece, but will instead focus on a few of the things I see dragging our country and our government down today. For the purposes of this essay, I will include telecommunications and media, Congress, and the courts. To start off on the positive, there’s some really good news at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The former head of search at Google told colleagues in February 2019 that his team was “getting too involved with ads for the good of the product and company,” according to emails shown at the Justice Department’s landmark antitrust trial against the company. Google maintains a firewall between its ads and search teams so that its engineers can innovate on Google’s search engine, unsullied by the influence of the team whose goal is to maximize advertising revenue.

The Supreme Court allowed Biden administration officials to continue to contact social media platforms to combat what the officials say is misinformation, pausing a sweeping ruling from a federal appeals court that had severely limited such interactions. The justices also agreed to hear the administration’s appeal in the case, setting the stage for a major test of the role of the First Amendment in the internet era — one that will require the court to consider when government efforts to limit the spread of misinformation amount to censorship of constitutionally protected speech.

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on petitions for reconsideration of the Restoring Internet Freedom (RIF) Remand Order filed by Common Cause, INCOMPAS, Public Knowledge, and the County of Santa Clara. The petitioners request that the FCC reconsider its decision in the RIF Remand Order, reverse or vacate that Order, and initiate a rulemaking proceeding to address the concerns raised by the DC Court of Appeals pertaining to the 2018 RIF Order. In addition to the issues raised in the petitions, the FCC invites comment on how the issues under con

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case in early 2024 that could impact how much regulatory discretion the FCC has over the communications industry. The court agreed to hear the case of Relentless Inc., et al. v. Dept. of Commerce, et al. The case is about a federal rule requiring fishing companies to pay for government monitoring of their herring catches.

Mobile communications company Ligado Networks sued the U.S. Departments of Defense and Commerce for unlawful taking of Ligado’s constitutionally protected, exclusively licensed spectrum without compensation. Backed by a multiyear misinformation and disparagement campaign against Ligado to conceal these activities, the U.S.

The Federal Communications Commission currently regulates broadband internet access service (BIAS, if you will) as an "information service" under Title I of the Communications Act. As the FCC contemplates reclassifying BIAS as a telecommunications service under Title II's common-carrier framework, the question is whether the FCC has authority to do so. Federal appeals courts have upheld previous FCC decisions on whether to apply common carrier rules to broadband.

The debate around “net neutrality” is back, only this time there is even less chance that the matter will be settled for good. Consumers’ online rights still need protection, and restoring them for an open internet is worthwhile. Those pointing to internet service providers’ (ISP) “good behavior” are being disingenuous at best. The 2018 decision to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's earlier net neutrality rule was being challenged in court until 2020, by which point several states had set up or had in motion their own net neutrality regulations in the absence of a federal one.

Net neutrality regulations have been dead for years, and they should stay that way. Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission has moved to reopen and re-litigate the issue. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has initiated a new rule-making that would enact what are largely the same net neutrality rules tried back in 2016. The law has changed and markets have changed, and yet the arguments for and against net neutrality have largely remained the same.