Law Center Search Results

The Supreme Court decided 6/27/05 that the Federal Communications Commission acted lawfully when it classified cable modem service as an “information service,” subject to minimal regulation under the Communications Act of 1934, and not also as a “telecommunications service.” In the decision under review, the Ninth Circuit declined to defer to the FCC’s interpretation of the Act, because that interpretation conflicted with circuit precedent. The Supreme Court held, however, that a court’s prior interpretation of a statute does not trump an agency construction otherwise entitled to Chevron deference. The only exception is when the earlier court decision holds that a statute is clear and no room is left for agency discretion. Here, the FCC’s interpretation of “telecommunications service” as not encompassing cable broadband is entitled to deference, because the Act is ambiguous as to what it means to “offer” telecommunications and the FCC made a reasonable policy choice. This decision is important to any business regulated under the Communications Act, and to all businesses affected by agency interpretations of statutes.

Decision Below: 345 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2004). Case # 04-277, National Cable & Telecom Association v. Brand X Internet Services.