Daniel Lyons

One way to decrease the importance of nomination fights is to reduce the power of agencies by shifting the locus of legislative decision-making back where it belongs — in Congress. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution — the document’s very first substantive provision — establishes that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Today, most policy decisions are made not on Capi

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes $42.45 billion in funding for broadband networks, which, if passed, would reflect the government’s most significant commitment to date to addressing America’s broadband availability gap. While I applaud making states the locus of fund distribution, I question the choice of National Telecommunications and Information Administration rather than the Federal Communications Commission as the locus of oversight.

In December 2020, in connection with a 2016 mandate to draft a report on the State of the Lifeline Marketplace, the Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau issued a data request asking wireless providers about customer usage and cost information. While the FCC’s newfound interest in data is commendable, the bureau is asking the wrong questions.

The time is long past for Congress to adopt outgoing Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s recommendation: Move the universal service program on-budget, which will shore up its precarious financial state and cure many of the real or perceived problems with the existing program. Some have suggested expanding the revenue base to include broadband access. An alternative proposal floated by state utilities commissioners would have replaced the existing surcharge with a per-number tax on residential lines and a revenue-based tax on commercial telephone revenue.

For analysts of digital policy issues, few datasets are more useful and trusted than the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life project, which regularly surveys Americans about internet-related topics.

The Federal Communications Commission faced criticism from Capitol Hill when a bipartisan letter from the New York delegation complained that the state has been unfairly excluded from participating in the agency’s new $20 billion broadband initiative. Sens.

In late October, the Supreme Court quietly declined to review Lipschultz v. Charter Advanced Services, an Eighth Circuit decision that preempted state regulation of fixed Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) service. While concurring in the denial of certiorari, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to challenge the underlying theory of federal preemption, noting that “it is doubtful whether a federal policy — let alone a policy of nonregulation — is" sufficient to establish conflict preemption.

The first years of the Trump Administration have seen a resurgence in state telecommunications regulation—driven not by state institutional concerns, but by policy disagreements over net neutrality. This article addresses the broader federalism questions raised by this net neutrality clash. Part I provides an overview of telecommunications federalism from the 1934 Communications Act through the present day, looking at the division of federal and state jurisdiction over traditional telephone service, wireless telephony, and information services.

The D.C. Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in Mozilla v. Federal Communications Commission.  The court affirmed the Federal Communications Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom (RIF) Order, identifying some flaws in the agency’s reasoning but finding the agency could likely correct those errors on remand without vacatur. Though largely expected given the Supreme Court’s precedent in Brand X, the decision is nonetheless a sweeping victory for the FCC and judicial validation of Chairman Ajit Pai’s light-touch regulatory framework for the broadband industry.

Four different universal service initiatives, each aimed at solving a different problem, are funded by a single surcharge on interstate and international telecommunications revenue. Over the past two decades, each program has grown independently without much regard to cost, or to the activities of the fund’s other programs. As a result, the surcharge has risen from 3 percent in 1998 to a whopping 24.4 percent today.