Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
3Activity
P. 1
FCC's net neutrality defense

FCC's net neutrality defense

Ratings: (0)|Views: 344|Likes:
Published by Brendan Sasso

More info:

Published by: Brendan Sasso on Sep 10, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/22/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
O
RAL
A
RGUMENT
N
OT
Y
ET
S
CHEDULED
 
B
RIEF FOR
A
PPELLEE
 /R
ESPONDENTS
 I
N THE
U
NITED
S
TATES
C
OURT OF
A
PPEALSFOR THE
D
ISTRICT OF
C
OLUMBIA
C
IRCUIT
 N
O
.
 
11-1355V
ERIZON ET AL
.,A
PPELLANTS
 /P
ETITIONERS
,
V
.F
EDERAL
C
OMMUNICATIONS
C
OMMISSIONAND
U
NITED
S
TATES OF
A
MERICA
,A
PPELLEE
 /R
ESPONDENTS
.O
N
P
ETITIONS FOR
R
EVIEW AND
N
OTICES OF
A
PPEAL OF AN
O
RDER OF THE
F
EDERAL
C
OMMUNICATIONS
C
OMMISSION
 S
EAN
A.
 
L
EV
 G
ENERAL
C
OUNSEL
 P
ETER
K
ARANJIA
 D
EPUTY
G
ENERAL
C
OUNSEL
 J
ACOB
M.
 
L
EWIS
 A
SSOCIATE
G
ENERAL
C
OUNSEL
 J
OEL
M
ARCUS
 C
OUNSEL
 J
OSEPH
F.
 
W
AYLAND
 A
CTING
A
SSISTANT
A
TTORNEY
G
ENERAL
 C
ATHERINE
G.
 
O’S
ULLIVAN
 N
ANCY
C.
 
G
ARRISON
 N
ICKOLAI
G.
 
L
EVIN
 A
TTORNEYS
 U
NITED
S
TATES
D
EPARTMENT OF
J
USTICE
 W
ASHINGTON
,
 
D.C.
 
20530F
EDERAL
C
OMMUNICATIONS
C
OMMISSION
 W
ASHINGTON
,
 
D.C.
 
20554(202)
 
418-1740
 
 
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES1. Parties.
Appellants/Petitioners:VerizonMetroPCSAppellee/Respondents:Federal Communications CommissionUnited States of AmericaIntervenors:ITTAOpen Internet CoalitionPublic KnowledgeVonageAll parties that appeared before the agency are listed in the briefs of appellants/petitioners.
2. Rulings under review.
Preserving the Open Internet 
, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 17905 (2010)(JA ).
3. Related cases.
Verizon claims (Br. xii-xiii) that
Cellco P’ship v. FCC 
, No. 11-1135, isrelated; MetroPCS (Br. xiii) disagrees. The
Cellco
case presents some legalissues similar to those presented here, but it involves entirely different factualand regulatory circumstances. The Court’s decision in either case does notcontrol the outcome of the other one.
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................iv
 
GLOSSARY....................................................................................................xi
 
JURISDICTION................................................................................................1
 
QUESTIONS PRESENTED.............................................................................2
 
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS................................................................2
 
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................2
 
COUNTERSTATEMENT................................................................................5
 
1.
 
Statutory And Regulatory Background.............................................5
 
2.
 
The
Open Internet 
Proceeding........................................................10
 
3.
 
Openness Drives Investment...........................................................11
 
4.
 
Threats To Internet Openness And Investment..............................12
 
5.
 
The Open Internet Rules.................................................................15
 
a.
 
Fixed Service Rules....................................................................16
 
b.
 
Mobile Wireless Rules................................................................17
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT......................................................................18
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW............................................................................22
 
ARGUMENT..................................................................................................25
 
I.
 
THE FCC REASONABLY INTERPRETED SECTION 706AND TITLE III AS GRANTS OF DIRECT AUTHORITYTO IMPLEMENT THE OPEN INTERNET RULES.............................25
 
A.
 
The Commission Reasonably Read Section 706 As AGrant Of Direct Authority And Properly Found That TheOpen Internet Rules Would Carry Out The StatutoryMandate...............................................................................................25
 

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Ebin George liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->