Court case

Honesty with the Federal Communications Commission is a foundational requirement for a broadcast licensee. Indeed, providing false statements to the FCC has been a basis for license revocation since the inception of the Communications Act in 1934. But the dissolution of the Sinclair/Tribune consolidation is a circumstance that would render a hearing at this time in the context of this proceeding an academic exercise. That is not to say that Sinclair’s alleged misconduct is nullified or excused by the cancellation of its proposed deal with Tribune.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the Justice Department’s bid to roll back AT&T’s 2018 acquisition of entertainment company Time Warner, a second defeat for government antitrust enforcers who sought to sink the $80 billion-plus deal. A three-judge panel of the appeals court affirmed a trial judge’s ruling in June that found the deal was unlikely to harm competition. Justice Department lawyers have argued that the combination of the two companies would reduce competition and hurt consumers.

Businesses with websites that can’t be navigated by the blind are getting pummeled with lawsuits. The new frontier in federal disability litigation has accelerated dramatically in recent years, with some companies now getting hit by lawsuits for the second or third time even after they’ve reached settlements to upgrade their sites. The complaints typically detail roadblocks that visually impaired individuals face when using “screen reader” tools that read the contents of a website aloud. The lawsuits often seek improvements to websites to ensure the technology functions.

On Feb 1, we had approximately 4.5 hours of oral argument on the network neutrality case. I want to just highlight one theme: the refusal of the Federal Communications Commission to be honest about the expected policy consequences of its actions. I highlight this for several reasons. First, people need to understand that while the agency can always change its mind, it has to follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which includes addressing the factual record, acknowledging the change in policy from the previous FCC, and explaining why it makes a different decision this time around.

On Feb 1, Petitioners (including Public Knowledge) finally got to make their case in court that the Federal Communications Commission’s reckless abdication of responsibility over broadband was illegal. To highlight some of them:

Benton Senior Fellow Gigi Sohn, previously counselor to former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, said that current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's attempt to repeal network neutrality rules could result in the reinstatement of the former rules. "If this prevails in the court, yes, the 2015 rules should come back," said Sohn, referring to the Mozilla suit, the case that is challenging the decision to end the Obama-era rules. "The court can do many different things to resolve this.

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit overturned the Federal Communications Commission's attempt to take broadband subsidies away from tribal residents. The Ajit Pai-led FCC voted 3-2 in Nov 2017 to make it much harder for tribal residents to obtain a $25-per-month Lifeline subsidy that reduces the cost of Internet or phone service. The change didn't take effect because in Aug 2018, the court stayed the FCC decision pending appeal.

Whether in the halls of the courts or the halls of Congress, we will fight to defend net neutrality. Nothing less than the fate of the internet is being argued in this court case, and we must do everything we can in this historic fight. We will soon lay down a legislative marker in the Senate in support of net neutrality to show the American people that we are on their side in overwhelming supporting a free and open internet.

Today in federal court, this Federal Communications Commission is attempting to explain why it ignored the evidence before it and hastily abandoned the carefully crafted, common sense Open Internet framework established in 2015. In the process, it ignored the will of millions of people who made their support for a free and open Internet crystal clear. Like many others, I am paying close attention. We know that consumers cannot count on the goodwill of big business to protect their interests. Unfettered access to the Open Internet provides a gateway to opportunity.