Communications Act of 1934

On May 31, 2024, USTelecom – The Broadband Association, NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, CTIA – The Wireless Association, the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, ACA Connects – America’s Communications Association, the Florida Internet & Television Association, MCTA – The Missouri Internet & Television Association, the Ohio Cable Telecommunications Association, the Ohio Telecom Association, and the Texas Cable Association (together, Petitioners) filed a petition for the Federal Communications Commission to stay the Declaratory Ruling, Order, Report and

In a series of orders beginning in 2005, the Federal Communications Commission has acted to promote the widespread deployment of broadband networks that are open, affordable, and accessible to all. Four of these previous orders have been reviewed by the D.C. Circuit; the challenge to a fifth order is currently pending (but in abeyance) there as well.  The D.C. Circuit has approved aspects of the FCC’s orders but disagreed with others—on several occasions remanding to the FCC for further action or additional deliberation. Thus, for more than a decade, the D.C.

The Federal Communications Commission made some changes to the recent Net Neutrality Order between the version that got approved on April 25 and the final version that was released to the Congressional record. One of the most interesting changes was to clarify rules pertaining to carriers creating fast lanes. The original order included language that prohibited paid prioritization, which is generically referred to as fast lanes.

On May 7, the Federal Communications Commission reclassified “broadband Internet access service” (BIAS) as a “telecommunications service” subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC under Title II of the Communications Act. The FCC determined that “the freedom to send and receive lawful content and to use and provide applications and services without fear of blocking continues to be essential to the Internet’s openness,” and expressed concern that BIAS providers may be incentivized to block edge providers’ content. Under the Open Internet rules, BIAS providers are prohibited from impairing or de

As expected, broadband industry lobby groups have sued the Federal Communications Commission in an attempt to nullify net neutrality rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. Lobby groups representing cable, telecom, and mobile Internet service providers sued the FCC in several US appeals courts.

Bob Latta (R-OH5) introduced a 

On May 7, 2024, the Federal Communications Commission released a Declaratory Ruling reclassifying “broadband Internet access service” (BIAS) as a “telecommunications service” subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC under Title II of the Communications Act. It was accompanied by an Order removing BIAS from most Title II regulations and a Report and Order applying a set of Open Internet rules to BIAS providers.

This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into by the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission for the purpose of facilitating their joint and common goals, obligations, and responsibilities to protect consumers and the public interest. The Agencies recognize and acknowledge that each agency has legal, technical, and investigative expertise and experience that is valuable for rendering advice and guidance to the other relating to the acts or practices of Internet service providers. It is agreed that: 

The Federal Communications Commission lawfully fined U.S. facilities-based wireless carriers nearly $200 million for selling highly intrusive location data about subscribers without their “opt-in” consent. In Section 222 of the Communications Act, Congress comprehensively specified how the carriers bore an affirmative duty of care not to disclose clearly defined Customer Proprietary Information (“CPNI”).  The Act explicitly required the FCC, and no other agency, to protect telecommunications consumers.

The Federal Communications Commission fined the nation’s largest wireless carriers for illegally sharing access to customers’ location information without consent and without taking reasonable measures to protect that information against unauthorized disclosure. Sprint and T-Mobile—which have merged since the investigation began—face fines of more than $12 million and $80 million, respectively.