Three More Parties Seek To File Amicus Briefs in FCC Net Neutrality Case
At least three more parties asked a federal court for permission to file amicus briefs in the litigation over the FCC net neutrality and broadband reclassification order. This week, the Center for Boundless Innovation (CBIT), International Center for Law and…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Economics (ICLE) and Phoenix Center filed motions (here, here and here) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to file briefs supporting petitioners challenging the FCC order, which are Alamo Broadband, the American Cable Association, AT&T, CenturyLink, CTIA, Daniel Berninger, Full Service Network, NCTA, USTelecom and the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association. All but FSN is challenging the FCC order as overly regulatory. CBIT said it would argue that broadband ISPs are part of the "press" that's protected by the First Amendment from common carrier regulation imposed by the FCC through its reclassification of broadband Internet access services under Title II of the Communications Act. The ICLE would argue the order exceeded FCC delegated authority, and even if it didn't it acted arbitrarily and capriciously "by failing to consider relevant economic literature, evidence, and the costs" of its rules. The Phoenix Center would address a "narrow legal issue deliberately sidestepped" by the FCC in lumping "edge providers" with retail customers of "Broadband Service Providers," which the center said "appears to be a strategic choice designed to obscure the regulatory implications of reclassification on the end-user termination service provided by BSPs to edge providers." If the FCC had properly followed D.C. Circuit precedent in the 2014 Verizon v. FCC case, it should have defined what a "just and reasonable" rate was for terminating end-user traffic, which would have potentially conflicted with the agency's net neutrality rule prohibiting paid prioritization and effectively mandating a zero price, the Phoenix Center said. Other parties recently moved to file amicus briefs (see 1507150012 and 1507140035).