Supporters and opponents of the Securing Participation, Engagement and Knowledge Freedom by Reducing Egregious Efforts (Speak Free) Act (HR-2304) speaking at a Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee event Friday agreed more action is needed to curb strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) being used against online reviewers, but disagreed whether HR-2304 was too broad to be an effective deterrent. HR-2304, introduced in May by House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas (see 1505140041), would introduce a national anti-SLAPP statute similar in scope to those in effect in California and Texas. The bill would allow defendants in a SLAPP lawsuit to file for a special motion to dismiss the lawsuit if the defendant provided an oral or written statement or other expression in connection with an official proceeding.
Senior FCC officials kept their eyes locked on Capitol Hill in recent months as lawmakers debated net neutrality legislation, internal emails obtained from the agency through a Communications Daily Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request showed. FCC officials stayed in touch with Democratic staffers from the Senate Commerce Committee, the office of Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and NTIA. Some former FCC officials told us such close tracking and back-channel communication is a natural part of how the agency functions.
Senior FCC officials kept their eyes locked on Capitol Hill in recent months as lawmakers debated net neutrality legislation, internal emails obtained from the agency through a Communications Daily Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request showed. FCC officials stayed in touch with Democratic staffers from the Senate Commerce Committee, the office of Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and NTIA. Some former FCC officials told us such close tracking and back-channel communication is a natural part of how the agency functions.
The FCC is likely to expand Lifeline USF support to broadband and could establish a budget for the program serving low-income consumers, panelists said Wednesday on a webinar hosted by Ball State's Digital Policy Institute. Finding a compromise that exerts fiscal control while allowing low-income consumers to benefit was seen by some panelists as key to obtaining a unanimous vote among commissioners -- who were divided 3-2 along partisan lines on issuing an NPRM in June (see 1506180029) -- though panelists had mixed assessments of the prospects. Some speakers also said the FCC was likely to relieve telecom carriers of responsibility for determining consumer Lifeline eligibility and voiced hope the process could be streamlined by shifting oversight to state agencies already administering other federal low-income programs such as food stamps and Medicaid.
The FCC is likely to expand Lifeline USF support to broadband and could establish a budget for the program serving low-income consumers, panelists said Wednesday on a webinar hosted by Ball State's Digital Policy Institute. Finding a compromise that exerts fiscal control while allowing low-income consumers to benefit was seen by some panelists as key to obtaining a unanimous vote among commissioners -- who were divided 3-2 along partisan lines on issuing an NPRM in June (see 1506180029) -- though panelists had mixed assessments of the prospects. Some speakers also said the FCC was likely to relieve telecom carriers of responsibility for determining consumer Lifeline eligibility and voiced hope the process could be streamlined by shifting oversight to state agencies already administering other federal low-income programs such as food stamps and Medicaid.
NTIA now believes it will need to extend its current contract with ICANN for the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions “at least through next July,” given recent stakeholder guidance on the timeline for the ongoing IANA transition process, NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling told the House Communications Subcommittee during a hearing Wednesday. Strickling has been seeking feedback from stakeholders on how long NTIA should extend ICANN's IANA contract past the current Sept. 30 expiration date. ICANN's IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), which are both working on proposals for the IANA transition, had told Strickling they believed the transition wouldn't be complete until at least July 2016. CCWG-Accountability cautioned that NTIA should operate under the assumption that the IANA transition could be delayed until at least September 2016 if that group's work requires further negotiations to achieve consensus (see 1507070058).
NTIA now believes it will need to extend its current contract with ICANN for the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions “at least through next July,” given recent stakeholder guidance on the timeline for the ongoing IANA transition process, NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling told the House Communications Subcommittee during a hearing Wednesday. Strickling has been seeking feedback from stakeholders on how long NTIA should extend ICANN's IANA contract past the current Sept. 30 expiration date. ICANN's IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), which are both working on proposals for the IANA transition, had told Strickling they believed the transition wouldn't be complete until at least July 2016. CCWG-Accountability cautioned that NTIA should operate under the assumption that the IANA transition could be delayed until at least September 2016 if that group's work requires further negotiations to achieve consensus (see 1507070058).
The Supreme Court may be moving in a direction of giving less deference to the Chevron doctrine and that could be bad news for the FCC as an appeal of the February net neutrality order moves forward, Free State Foundation President Randolph May said Tuesday in The Hill. In recent decisions, King v. Burwell, an Affordable Care Act (ACA) case, and Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court raised new questions about Chevron deference, the doctrine that if a reviewing court deems a statutory provision “ambiguous” and the agency's interpretation “reasonable,” an agency's interpretation is to be given “controlling weight,” May said. In rejecting the latest challenge to the ACA, Chief Justice John Roberts “refrained, at least explicitly, from relying on Chevron deference, despite acknowledging the statute's ambiguity,” May wrote. “While observing that Chevron's approach ‘is premised on the theory that a statute's ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps,’ he nevertheless declared that this was one of the ‘extraordinary cases’ in which the Chevron doctrine doesn't apply. Why not? Because, according to Roberts, it involves a question of such deep 'economic and political significance' that ‘had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly.’" In the Michigan case, writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said the EPA may regulate power plants only if it concludes "regulation is appropriate and necessary," May said. “Scalia, while not questioning Chevron's applicability, determined that, ‘even under this deferential standard,’ the EPA's interpretation of the statute was unreasonable. Thus, Chevron did not carry the day.”
The Supreme Court may be moving in a direction of giving less deference to the Chevron doctrine and that could be bad news for the FCC as an appeal of the February net neutrality order moves forward, Free State Foundation President Randolph May said Tuesday in The Hill. In recent decisions, King v. Burwell, an Affordable Care Act (ACA) case, and Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court raised new questions about Chevron deference, the doctrine that if a reviewing court deems a statutory provision “ambiguous” and the agency's interpretation “reasonable,” an agency's interpretation is to be given “controlling weight,” May said. In rejecting the latest challenge to the ACA, Chief Justice John Roberts “refrained, at least explicitly, from relying on Chevron deference, despite acknowledging the statute's ambiguity,” May wrote. “While observing that Chevron's approach ‘is premised on the theory that a statute's ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps,’ he nevertheless declared that this was one of the ‘extraordinary cases’ in which the Chevron doctrine doesn't apply. Why not? Because, according to Roberts, it involves a question of such deep 'economic and political significance' that ‘had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly.’" In the Michigan case, writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said the EPA may regulate power plants only if it concludes "regulation is appropriate and necessary," May said. “Scalia, while not questioning Chevron's applicability, determined that, ‘even under this deferential standard,’ the EPA's interpretation of the statute was unreasonable. Thus, Chevron did not carry the day.”
Judicial review of the net neutrality litigation is coming into clearer focus as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently set a briefing schedule, and telco and cable petitioners outlined their many lines of attack on the FCC's order. The court essentially accepted the parties’ proposed expedited briefing timetable running through mid-October, but it shortened and consolidated the briefs proposed by the main telco and cable broadband groups challenging the order while raising the word limit for intervenors defending the commission's net neutrality rules and broadband reclassification. One key aspect of the court's review still isn't known: the identity of the three judges who will review the merits of the industry challenges, which argue the FCC order violated the Communications Act, administrative procedures and even the First Amendment.