DOCSLIB.ORG

Alamo Broadband Inc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

USCA Case #15-1063 Document #1627605 Filed: 07/29/2016 Page 1 of 221 No. 15-1063 (and consolidated cases) _______________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT _____________________________________________________ UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION, et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. ______________________________________________________ ON PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC ANDREW G. MCBRIDE BRETT A. SHUMATE EVE KLINDERA REED WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 719-7000 Dated: July 29, 2016 Counsel for Alamo Broadband Inc. USCA Case #15-1063 Document #1627605 Filed: 07/29/2016 Page 2 of 221 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... ii GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................ iv INTRODUCTION AND FED. R. APP. 35(B)(1) STATEMENT ...........................1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................4 I. THE PANEL ERRED BY CONCLUDING THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT LIMIT THE FCC’S AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE INTERNET. .....................................................................4 II. THE PANEL ERRED BY CONCLUDING THAT SECTION 706 AUTHORIZES COMMON CARRIAGE REGULATION OF THE INTERNET. ..................................................................................................12 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................15 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ADDENDUM 1 – PANEL OPINION ADDENDUM 2 – CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES AND AMICI ADDENDUM 3 - CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT i USCA Case #15-1063 Document #1627605 Filed: 07/29/2016 Page 3 of 221 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Brown v. Entm’t Merchs. Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729 (2011) .......................................................................................... 8 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) .................................................................................................. 7 Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. FCC, 597 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2010) .............................................................. 5, 7, 9, 10 Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) .............................................................................................. 9 City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988) ............................................................................................ 12 Comcast Cablevision v. Broward Cnty., 124 F. Supp. 2d 685 (S.D. Fla. 2000) ................................................................. 10 Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988) ............................................................................................ 14 FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) ...................................................................................... 13, 14 Ill. Bell Tel. Co. v. Village of Itasca, 503 F. Supp. 2d 928 (N.D. Ill. 2007) .................................................................. 10 Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1877) ........................................................................................ 10, 11 Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938) ............................................................................................ 10 Loving v. IRS, 742 F.3d 1013 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 13 * Authorities upon which we chiefly rely are marked with asterisks ii USCA Case #15-1063 Document #1627605 Filed: 07/29/2016 Page 4 of 221 Midwest Video Corp. v. FCC, 571 F.2d 1025 (8th Cir. 1978) .............................................................................. 8 NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) .............................................................................................. 8 NCTA v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) .............................................................................................. 8 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) ........................................................................................ 9, 11 *Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) ........................................................................................ 4, 10 *Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 STATUTES 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)(A) ........................................................................................... 6 47 U.S.C. § 1302 ........................................................................................................ 3 OTHER AUTHORITIES Christopher S. Yoo, Free Speech and the Myth of the Internet as an Unintermediated Experience, 78 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 697 (2010) ............. 6, 7, 12 Christopher S. Yoo, Wickard for the Internet? Network Neutrality After Verizon v. FCC, 66 Fed. Comm. L.J. 415 (2014) ................................................................ 15 City of Wilson, North Carolina Petition for Preemption, 30 F.C.C.R. 2408 (2015)..................................................................................... 14 Connect America Fund, 26 F.C.C.R. 17663 (2011)................................................................................... 14 Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services, 31 F.C.C.R. 2500 (2016)..................................................................................... 14 iii USCA Case #15-1063 Document #1627605 Filed: 07/29/2016 Page 5 of 221 GLOSSARY FCC Federal Communications Commission FTC Federal Trade Commission ISP Internet Service Provider JA Joint Appendix Op. Opinion iv USCA Case #15-1063 Document #1627605 Filed: 07/29/2016 Page 6 of 221 INTRODUCTION AND FED. R. APP. 35(B)(1) STATEMENT The Panel opinion sustaining the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) open internet rules addressed two questions of exceptional importance.1 First, the Panel concluded that the First Amendment does not limit the FCC’s authority to regulate the internet. It found the rules raise no First Amendment issue because the FCC declared broadband providers to be—and compelled them to act as—common carriers. The Panel erred because the rules strip broadband providers of their First Amendment right to exercise discretion about whether and how to carry internet traffic over their networks. Correctly resolving this question is exceptionally important because every other medium of mass communication— from the printing press to cable television—is entitled to First Amendment protection. The Panel’s rationale would allow the government to not only order the blocking of internet content it deems objectionable, but could also be used to try to strip other media—cable operators, broadcasters, and new media conduits— of First Amendment protection by declaring them to be common carriers. Second, the Panel decided that section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 affords the FCC “‘virtually unlimited power to regulate the Internet.’” 1 Although the Panel addressed many important issues, Alamo petitions for rehearing of only those portions of the opinion addressing the First Amendment and section 706 challenges to the open internet rules. Op. 94-97, 106-115. These two questions independently merit rehearing regardless of whether the Court agrees to rehear other aspects of the case. 1 USCA Case #15-1063 Document #1627605 Filed: 07/29/2016 Page 7 of 221 Concurring & Dissenting Op. 52 (quoting Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623, 662 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Silberman, J.))). The Panel erred because section 706 is a policy statement that delegates no independent regulatory authority to the FCC. At a minimum, section 706 cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorizing common carriage regulation of the internet without a finding that broadband providers possess market power. Id. at 58-59. The correct interpretation of section 706 is exceptionally important because the FCC now has “carte blanche to issue any regulation that the Commission might believe to be in the public interest.” Verizon, 740 F.3d at 662 (Silberman, J.)). BACKGROUND In response to this Court’s decision in Verizon, the FCC took two independent but related actions. First, the FCC adopted open internet rules that require broadband providers to carry all lawful internet traffic and prohibit favoring some traffic over other traffic. Second, the FCC reclassified broadband service as a telecommunications service subject to common carrier regulation under Title II of the Communications Act. Op. 20-21. The Panel denied Alamo Broadband’s petition for review of the open internet rules.2 First, the Panel held that the rules do not violate the First 2 Alamo did not challenge the FCC’s reclassification ruling. Alamo argued that the Court should vacate the open internet rules regardless of how the Court resolves the other parties’ challenges to the reclassification ruling. 2 USCA Case #15-1063 Document #1627605 Filed: 07/29/2016 Page 8 of 221 Amendment.
Recommended publications
  • Vintage Game Consoles: an INSIDE LOOK at APPLE, ATARI

    Vintage Game Consoles: an INSIDE LOOK at APPLE, ATARI

    Vintage Game Consoles Bound to Create You are a creator. Whatever your form of expression — photography, filmmaking, animation, games, audio, media communication, web design, or theatre — you simply want to create without limitation. Bound by nothing except your own creativity and determination. Focal Press can help. For over 75 years Focal has published books that support your creative goals. Our founder, Andor Kraszna-Krausz, established Focal in 1938 so you could have access to leading-edge expert knowledge, techniques, and tools that allow you to create without constraint. We strive to create exceptional, engaging, and practical content that helps you master your passion. Focal Press and you. Bound to create. We’d love to hear how we’ve helped you create. Share your experience: www.focalpress.com/boundtocreate Vintage Game Consoles AN INSIDE LOOK AT APPLE, ATARI, COMMODORE, NINTENDO, AND THE GREATEST GAMING PLATFORMS OF ALL TIME Bill Loguidice and Matt Barton First published 2014 by Focal Press 70 Blanchard Road, Suite 402, Burlington, MA 01803 and by Focal Press 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Focal Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2014 Taylor & Francis The right of Bill Loguidice and Matt Barton to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
  • FWD: Notes from the Open Compute Summit, Part 2 2

    FWD: Notes from the Open Compute Summit, Part 2 2

    22 MARCH 2018 1. FWD: Notes from the Open Compute Summit, part 2 2. University College London carries 120 Terabit/s over a single repeatered fibre with Xtera 3. UK kicks off 5G spectrum auction 4. NTT Com plans 4th data center campus in Frankfurt 5. Dell EMC launches Virtual Edge Platform 6. Microsoft signs largest corporate solar deal in U.S. at 315 MW 7. Averon raises $13.3 million for mobile identity 8. CenturyLink overtakes AT&T on Vertical Systems Group Leaderboard 9. ETSI and OPNFV announce co-located testing 10. ZTE touts cloud native container platform for NFV 11. Samsung posts specs on its 10nm Exynos 7 Series 9610 12. Seagate shows 14TB helium-based Exos HDD Foreword FWD: Notes from the Open Compute Summit The annual Open Compute Project Summit, which is underway this week at the San Jose Convention Center, has attracted approximately 3,000 attendees to hear and discuss the latest innovations in hyperscale cloud engineering. The overall impression of the Open Compute Project Summit 2018 in San Jose is that the hyperscale cloud operators have reached such size and power that they are able to throw their weight around without worrying too much about niceties such as industry standards and specifications. Although participants in the OCP talked about being part of a community, in reality it is clear that Facebook, Microsoft and Google use the forum as a way of communicating their interests and requirements to the industry without having to seek compromise and negotiated agreement as has been typical in the IETF or the IEEE.
  • In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ______

    In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ______

    USCA Case #15-1063 Document #1627850 Filed: 07/29/2016 Page 1 of 37 Nos. 15-1063 (and consolidated cases) ________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ________________________________________ UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION, et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Respondents. ________________________________________ On Petition for Review from the Federal Communications Commission ________________________________________ PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC FOR INTERVENORS TECHFREEDOM, JEFF PULVER, SCOTT BANISTER, CHARLES GIANCARLO, AND DAVID FRANKEL ________________________________________ BERIN M. SZÓKA C. BOYDEN GRAY THOMAS W. STRUBLE ADAM J. WHITE TECHFREEDOM DEREK S. LYONS 110 Maryland Avenue, NE ADAM R.F. GUSTAFSON Suite 409 JAMES R. CONDE Washington, DC 20002 BOYDEN GRAY & ASSOCIATES (202) 803-2867 801 17th St. N.W., Suite 350 [email protected] Washington, DC 20006 (202) 955-0620 July 29, 2016 [email protected] (Page 1 of Total) USCA Case #15-1063 Document #1627850 Filed: 07/29/2016 Page 2 of 37 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................... ii GLOSSARY ................................................................................................ iv INTRODUCTION AND RULE 35(b) STATEMENT ................................. 1 BACKGROUND .........................................................................................

  • Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554

    Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) National Telecommunications ) RM – 11862 and Information Administration ) ) Petition for Rulemaking to ) Clarify provisions of Section 230 ) Of the Communications Act of 1934 ) COMMENTS OF TECHFREEDOM 110 Maryland Ave NE Suite #205 Washington, DC 20002 Dated: September 2, 2020 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) National Telecommunications ) RM – 11862 and Information Administration ) ) Petition for Rulemaking to ) Clarify provisions of Section 230 ) Of the Communications Act of 1934 ) COMMENTS OF TECHFREEDOM: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section 230 is the law that made today’s Internet possible. The law has allowed websites to host content created by users without, as the bill’s author, Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), warned in 1995, “spending vast sums of money trying to define elusive terms that are going to lead to a flood of legal challenges.” Without the broad protections of 230(c)(1) in particular, websites would face “death by ten thousand duck-bites” in the form of massive litigation risks. NTIA asks the FCC to turn this law on its head, but the FCC has no authority to reinterpret the statute. The plain language and the legislative history of Section 230 demonstrate that Congress did not intend to grant any regulatory authority to the FCC. Instead, as Rep. Cox declared, Congress did “not wish to have a Federal Computer Commission with an army of bureaucrats regulating the Internet.” Under the statute’s express terms, the “interactive computer service” providers protected by Section 230 are not “information service providers,” nor are they otherwise subject to the FCC’s jurisdiction.
  • TOP100 the DRONE STARTUP Echnology TACKLING T WILDFIRES Startups | Global Be Your Authentic Digital Self

    TOP100 the DRONE STARTUP Echnology TACKLING T WILDFIRES Startups | Global Be Your Authentic Digital Self

    SPECIAL EDITION VOLUME 3 WWW.REDHERRING.COM Special Edition $3.99 / $4.99 CANADA RED HERRING MAGAZINE | SPECIAL EDITION 4 SPECIAL EDITION VOLUME | RED HERRING MAGAZINE Global Promise - THE WORLD’S BEST STARTUPS FEATURE STORY: SECURING THE FUTURE WITH QUALYS Legendary CEO Philippe Courtot on the Perfect Paradigm THE IMPORTANCE SPECIAL EDITION OF UX IN CYBERSECURITY TOP100 THE DRONE STARTUP echnology TACKLING T WILDFIRES Startups | Global Be Your Authentic Digital Self Averon's revolutionary new Direct Autonomous Authentication (DAA™) is reimagining digital authentication, making it easier to secure your identity so that you feel safer in the digital world. With DAA™ there is no need for passwords or security questions. It instantaneously verifies your identity by using the mobile data already present in every smart phone across the globe, providing more security than traditional 2FAs. Feel the freedom that security brings. Be authentic ™. averon.com THE EXTREME PHANTOM More powerful · More exhilarating · More refined 4.500 W • 108 dB • 14Hz-27kHz • Titanium Tweeter No distortion · No saturation · No background noise Phantom is unique. More than a connected speaker, Phantom emits sound using a revolutionary and inherently superior process created by Devialet engineers. Invented and made in France, protected by 108 patents, Phantom forever changes the world of sound. Experience the ultra-dense sound with physical impact in its most extreme version with Gold Phantom. Red Herring Magazine 66 22 24 red herring Special Edition Volume 3 CONTENTS 42 this issue 7 Editor’s Note 8 Top 100 Companies: Europe The 100 most promising startups in Europe 26 Top 100 Companies: Asia 38 Cover Interview Qualys CEO Phillipe Courtot 48 Top 100 Companies: North America 4 RED HERRING | SPECIAL EDITION Red Herring Magazine top 100 awards In this issue the Red Herring Top 100 awards highlights the most exciting startups from Europe, North America and Asia.