MENU

Internet Issues

Federalism and Municipal Broadband - Podcast

Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Podcast
Raymond L. Gifford March 21, 2016

On March 17th the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments in The State of Tennessee et al. v. FCC. This appeal involves a challenge to the FCC’s March 2015 order that preempted certain provisions of Tennessee and North Carolina state laws, which impose restrictions on the deployment of municipal broadband services. The Sixth Circuit will determine whether the FCC has the power to intervene and define the relationship between state and municipal governments when it comes to providing these services. Our expert discussed the FCC’s order, the parties’ arguments, and the takeaways from the oral argument.

Featuring:

  • Raymond L. Gifford, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

Should the government be able to read your emails?

Short Video on Private Servers and the 4th Amendment in the Information Age featuring Amy Peikoff
Amy Peikoff February 10, 2016

Southwestern Law School’s Visiting Associate Professor Amy Peikoff explains the Third Party Doctrine of the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment Doctrine. Under the Third Party Doctrine, the government does not need a warrant in order to obtain information entrusted to a third party, such as a bank, cell phone company, or email server. Thus, individuals who utilize their personal server for email may effectively keep their emails private while those using a commercial email server such as gmail do not have the same privacy.

Running Aground in the Surveillance Safe Harbor - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Stewart A. Baker, Susan L. Foster, Matthew R.A. Heiman January 28, 2016

In October of 2015, the European Court of Justice invalidated the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor agreement that allows for the transfer of personal data by U.S. companies that comply with a set of primary principles. Based in part on the Edward Snowden disclosures, the Court reasoned that U.S. law fails to provide adequate protection for such data. Now, businesses are implementing remediation plans to maintain legal compliance, and EU and U.S. negotiators are negotiating Safe Harbor 2.0. As a condition to a new agreement, some European policymakers are demanding that the U.S. reform its electronic surveillance programs. Our panel discussed these intersecting issues.

Featuring:

  • Stewart A. Baker,Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
  • Susan L. Foster, Member, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, and Popeo, P.C.
  • Moderator: Matthew R.A. Heiman, Vice President, Chief Compliance & Audit Officer, Tyco International 

RESOLVED: The FCC Does Not Have the Legal Authority to Implement Net Neutrality - Event Audio/Video

18th Annual Faculty Conference
Adam Candeub, Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Geoffrey A. Manne, James A. Speta, Daniel Lyons January 15, 2016

The FCC derives its legal authority almost entirely from statutes that predate the Internet--primarily from the 1934 Communications Act, which was designed for the regulation of a national telephone monopolist, and the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which was designed to incrementally deregulate the communications industry as the vestiges of that national monopoly gave way to competition. Over the past 20 years, the Internet has become the foundation of the communications industry, playing a role similar to that of the monopoly-provided telecommunications services that the FCC has traditionally regulated. There is unquestionably more competition today than there was in 1934, but perhaps not as much as was hoped in 1996.  The FCC’s Open Internet Order, in which the FCC brought Internet Service Providers within the regulatory framework initially created in 1934, presents a compelling example of an agency struggling to find a new role in a changed industry – struggling to imbue old statutes with broad grants of power to govern what the FCC, but perhaps not Congress, believes are issues properly within its ambit. In doing so, the Order thrusts the FCC into current debates about the scope of the administrative state, the potential revival of the major questions doctrine, and the potential demise of Chevron.  Framed by these issues, this debate will consider whether the FCC’s Open Internet Order fits within the agency’s statutory authority.

This debate took place during the 18th Annual Faculty Conference at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel in New York, NY on January 8, 2016.

Luncheon Debate: Resolved: The FCC does not have the legal authority to implement net neutrality
12:00 pm - 2:00 pm

  • Prof. Adam Candeub, Michigan State University School of Law
  • Prof. Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Nebraska College of Law
  • Mr. Geoffrey Manne, International Center for Law and Economics
  • Prof. James Speta, Northwestern University School of Law
  • Moderator: Prof. Daniel Lyons, Boston College Law School

Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel
New York, NY

Regulating a World Wide Web - Podcast

Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Podcast
Paul Brigner, Roslyn Layton, Robert M. McDowell, David Redl, Patricia J. Paoletta December 22, 2015

Net Neutrality has been the subject of intense policy discussion in recent years, but the dramatic international implications of a shift in internet regulation remain unappreciated. To date, U.S. regulators have utilized a light-touch form of regulation. Much has been said about the Federal Communication Commission’s new regulatory approach, but left largely undiscussed is how it will affect the global internet, American competitiveness, and more. Our panelists provided an in-depth discussion of the global ripples the FCC’s Open Internet Order may create.

Featuring:

  • Paul Brigner, Director, North America Regional Bureau, Internet Society
  • Roslyn Layton, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
  • Hon. Robert M. McDowell, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
  • David Redl, Chief Counsel for Communications and Technology, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives
  • Moderator: Patricia J. Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP