Source: http://www.fcc.gov/document/conference-group-llc-v-fcc-no-12-1124-dc-cir?fontsize=
Timestamp: 2014-04-18 14:59:23
Document Index: 507868615

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 201', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 554', '§ 554', '§ 554', '§ 557', '§ 153', '§ 153', '§ 153']

regulatory tools to perform that responsibility. The Commission, for example, has power to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest.” 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). The FCC also has separate authority to conduct adjudications and to issue adjudicatory orders. E.g., Central Texas Tel. Co-op., Inc. v. FCC, 402 F.3d 205, 210 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Section 4(j) of the Communications Act gives the FCC broad authority to “conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best conduce 1 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) (authorizing the Commission to “perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this [Act], as may be necessary in the execution of its functions”). 3 to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice.” 47 U.S.C. § 154(j). The Supreme Court has characterized section 4(j) as a “delegation of broad procedural authority,” FCC v. Schreiber, 381 U.S. 279, 289 (1965), and has specifically recognized the Commission’s “substantial discretion as to whether to proceed by rulemaking or adjudication,” FCC v. Nat’l Citizens Comm. for Broadcasting, 436 U.S. 775, 808 n.29 (1978) (“NCCB”). Like all agencies, the FCC must adhere to the procedural requirements of the APA. Section 4 of the APA requires an agency to follow certain procedures before it adopts a “substantive” or “legislative” rule. 5 U.S.C. § 553. For example, the agency must publish a “[g]eneral notice of proposed rule making” in the Federal Register, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), and “[must] give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission[s],” id., § 553(c). Sections 5, 7, and 8 of the APA establish different procedural requirements for formal trial-type adjudications generally “required by statute to be determined on the record.” 5 U.S.C. § 554(a). The APA requires that parties to formal adjudications be given notice of “the matters of fact and law asserted,” id., § 554(b)(3), an opportunity for “the submission and consideration of facts [and] arguments,” id., § 554(c)(1), 4 and an opportunity to submit “proposed findings and conclusions” or “exceptions,” id., § 557(c)(1) & (2). In contrast to substantive rulemakings and formal adjudications, the APA contains no specific notice-and-comment requirements governing informal agency adjudication. Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. SEC, 873 F.2d 325, 337 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Telecommunications and USF Contribution Obligations. “Telecommunications” is “the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.” 47 U.S.C. § 153(50). A “telecommunications service” is “the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.” 47 U.S.C. § 153(53). In contrast with a telecommunications service, an “information service” is “the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a 5 telecommunications service.” 47 U.S.C. § 153(24). “Telecommunications services” and “information services” are “two mutually exclusive categories of service.” Inquiry Concerning High Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, Internet Over Cable Declaratory Ruling, 17 FCC Rcd 4798, 4823 (¶ 41) (2002) (“Cable Modem Order”), aff’d in part & vacated in part sub nom. Brand X Internet Services v. FCC, 345 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2003), rev’d, Brand X, 545 U.S. 967. The Commission interprets the telecommunications service/information service dichotomy in the Communications Act in essence as codifying the regulatory distinction that the agency had 2 established in its 1980 Computer II Order between “basic” common 3
carrier communications services and “enhanced services.” The Commission in the Computer II Order described