Court case

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has gone on the offensive and defended itself against possible lawsuits that might claim that the FCC has overstepped its regulatory authority that was granted by Congress.

Cox’s lawsuit is both misleading and unsupported by facts. The $108.7 million in federal funds allocated to Rhode Island through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program is a transformative opportunity designed to close the digital divide in our state by ensuring every resident has access to affordable, reliable, high-speed internet. The State of Rhode Island was awarded these funds only after the National Telecommunications and Information Administration approved the state’s Initial Proposal.

A tug-of-war over the McKee administration's proposed use of $108 million in federal "internet for all" dollars has evolved into a lawsuit by Cox Communications against Rhode Island. Cox is seeking to stop the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation from using a "flawed mapping and challenge process to build redundant broadband internet infrastructure in some of Rhode Island’s wealthiest communities ...

Two recent Supreme Court decisions produced sweeping changes to how regulation works in the United States, shifting power from agencies to the courts. Investment will now take place against the backdrop of the “judicial veto,” where a wide range of potential litigants and sympathetic judges will decide which regulations actually go into effect, and when. According to conventional wisdom, scaling back the regulatory state will help businesses. However, the court’s rulings will suppress business investment in three unintended ways.

NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association is releasing the results of a survey it conducted of members on how the potential disruption of Universal Service Fund (USF) support could affect rural consumers, broadband investment in rural America, and the viability of existing rural broadband networks. The survey was conducted in August 2024 following a July decision finding the system for contributions to the federal USF unconstitutional and remanding the matter to the Federal Communications Commission. Significant findings include: 

Two very real Universal Service Fund (USF) problems need to be addressed: funding and spending. The way the program is funded is inefficient, unsustainable, and regressive. Regardless of the judicial outcome, the tax that the court declared unconstitutional is both inefficient, by taxing a small, price-sensitive, declining base, and regressive, with a higher proportional burden falling on those least able to afford it. The program spends too much money on the wrong things. The High Cost Fund in particular, which accounts for about half of total spending, is outdated and wasteful.

The Philadelphia-based Third U.S.

Rural areas, low-income communities and individuals, and racial and ethnic minorities still often have less access to quality, affordable broadband.

The D.C. District court announced its decision in U.S. v.

In issuing a temporary stay of the Federal Communications Commission 2024 Net Neutrality order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has gone beyond recent teachings of the Supreme Court to erroneously block exercise of regulatory authority that Congress clearly intended the FCC to exercise. From the Federal Reserve Board to the Federal Trade Commission and beyond, expert agencies have been created as a means for Congress to ensure that durable legislative principles keep up with the times. The current Supreme Court seems not to share that view.