scholarly journals Net Neutrality in the U.S. – 2015

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-59
Author(s):  
Robert Larribeau
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Communications Commission ◽  
The Body ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Content Provider ◽  
Treat All ◽  
Significant Support ◽  
The U.S

A U.S. Federal Court ruling in January 2014 overturned Net Neutrality rules issued in 2010 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the body that regulates both the telecommunications and the cable industries in the U.S.  This sparked significant support for establishing new rules to provide Net Neutrality and resulted in the submission of more than one million comments to the FCC, which broke all records.  This led to the FCC adopting new Net Neutrality rules in February 2015.  The FCC followed President Barack Obama’s lead and classified the broadband operators as common carriers, which will require that they treat all of their customers and all content providers equally.  As common carriers the broadband operators will not be able to favour one content provider over another or favour their own content services.  It is very likely that these new rules will not settle the issue and will be challenged in Congress and in the courts. The Net Neutrality controversy will continue.

scholarly journals Net Neutrality in the U.S. – 2015

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Robert Larribeau
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Communications Commission ◽  
The Body ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Content Provider ◽  
Treat All ◽  
Significant Support ◽  
The U.S

A U.S. Federal Court ruling in January 2014 overturned Net Neutrality rules issued in 2010 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the body that regulates both the telecommunications and the cable industries in the U.S.  This sparked significant support for establishing new rules to provide Net Neutrality and resulted in the submission of more than one million comments to the FCC, which broke all records.  This led to the FCC adopting new Net Neutrality rules in February 2015.  The FCC followed President Barack Obama’s lead and classified the broadband operators as common carriers, which will require that they treat all of their customers and all content providers equally.  As common carriers the broadband operators will not be able to favour one content provider over another or favour their own content services.  It is very likely that these new rules will not settle the issue and will be challenged in Congress and in the courts. The Net Neutrality controversy will continue.

scholarly journals Washington Hotline

2019 ◽  
Vol 80 (10) ◽  
pp. 587
Author(s):  
Ellen Satterwhite
Keyword(s):  
Service Providers ◽  
Internet Traffic ◽  
Federal Communications Commission ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Network Neutrality ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
Internet Service Providers ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The U.S

The fight for network neutrality continues, despite disappointing court rulingOn October 1, 2019, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered a long-awaited and complex ruling on whether the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had the authority to eliminate Obama-era network neutrality protections that required all Internet traffic to be treated equally and prohibited blocking or prioritizing traffic in any way. The issue hinges in part on the reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service, which would have made Internet service providers subject to stricter regulations. The judges ruled in favor of the FCC, saying it does have the authority to determine how the Internet is regulated (or not, in this case). At the same time, the court also determined the FCC still has work to do, remanding parts of the order back for further proceedings and, most importantly, rejecting the FCC’s attempts to prevent states from passing their own net neutrality rules.

scholarly journals Visualizing Simultaneity in Diasporic Public Spheres: The case of the Mexican Diaspora in the U.S.

JOMEC Journal ◽  
2017 ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Gabriel Moreno Esparza ◽  
Rosa Angélica Martínez Téllez
Keyword(s):  
Political Participation ◽  
News Media ◽  
The Body ◽  
The Political ◽  
Public Spheres ◽  
Interactive Spaces ◽  
Digital News ◽  
And Migration ◽  
The U.S

This article argues that explorations of interactive spaces afforded by digital news media provide a dynamic platform to visualize the prospects for the political participation of diasporas in their countries of origin and residence. In this case, a breakdown of the frequency of comments across a variety of news sections about Mexico and the U.S. in Univision.com uncovered a lively range of interactions between news forum participants, signalling simultaneous interest in on-going events and processes in the two countries. The dual national orientations highlighted by these findings ‘touch base’ with the body of literature about media and migration, which has in recent times recognised the interconnectedness of immigrants-sending and receiving societies, whilst offering a more refined conceptualization of the concept of simultaneity in regard to diasporic public spheres.

Factors Affecting Application for Overseas Research: A Survey of MESA Members

1988 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jere L. Bacharach
Keyword(s):  
Middle East ◽  
The Body ◽  
International Exchange ◽  
American Government ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Background Material ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Quantitative Nature

Why are there relatively few American academicians applying for overseas grants? This was the underlying question at a meeting in April, 1988, where members of the CIES (Council for the International Exchange of Scholars of the Fulbright Commission), the U.S. Information Agency, and the Board of Foreign Scholars, the body which oversees all American government-sponsored activities, met. As background material, CIES presented data accumulated from surveying a sample of individuals who had requested information for Fulbright programs but had not applied. (Twenty-six of the sample were interested in the Middle East programs.) Information of a non-quantitative nature was drawn from the reports of recent Fulbrighters and was also included.

JAČANjE PRINCIPA NEUTRALNOSTI INTERNETA KROZ PRAKSU SUDA PRAVDE EU

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Lučić ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Internet Access ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Internet Neutrality ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Treat All ◽  
First Time ◽  
Access Services ◽  
The Eu

In Case C-807/18 the Court of Justice of the EU had the opportunity to interpret Regulation 2015/2120, which contains the principle of Internet Neutrality, for the first time. On this occasion, the Court took position that Internet providers must not favor certain applications and services for providing and using data on the Internet to the detriment of others. The principle of net neutrality existed even before the adoption of Regulation 2015/2120. This Regulation establishes measures concerning open access to the Internet. Namely, the Regulation sets rules aimed at ensuring equality and nondiscriminatory treatement of traffic, as well as protection of the rights of end users. The principle of net neutrality implies that all providers of internet access services will treat all traffic equally without discrimination, restriction or interference and regardless of the sender and recipient, the content accessed or distributed,

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Donald W. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Court Records ◽  
History Of ◽  
First Time ◽  
The U.S

This introduction reframes the history of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Hague v. CIO (1939) that guaranteed speech and assembly rights in public municipal forums under federal law for the first time. It lifts the story out of standard treatment as a product of police repression of labor organizers by city boss Frank Hague, exploring instead the case’s broader roots in multiple changes in city governance, policing, the labor movement, civil liberties law, and anticommunism and antifascism politics of the late New Deal era. It urges examination of all sides of the controversy, winners and losers, scrutinizing evidence beyond antiboss sources, including varied newspapers, municipal reports, trial transcripts, labor archives, and federal court records. It views the case as part of a constitutional watershed.

From The Hague to Arusha to Kansas Federal Court

2020 ◽  
pp. 171-177
Author(s):  
Paul J. Magnarella
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Wrongful Conviction ◽  
Court Records ◽  
Trial Transcript ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Constitutional Protections ◽  
The U.S

Paul Magnarella describes his legal work with the UN Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and his travel to Arusha, Tanzania, to work with the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. He describes meeting the O’Neals and agreeing to become Pete O’Neal’s attorney. After examining Pete’s court records and trial transcript, Magnarella concludes that the presiding judge, Arthur J. Stanley, made a number of crucial errors that resulted in Pete’s wrongful conviction. Magnarella examines Judge Stanley’s previous famous case involving George John Gessner, a private first-class nuclear weapons specialist. Judge Stanley’s court found Gessner guilty of communicating restrictive data to a foreign nation. Federal appellate judges overturned the conviction, ruling that the U.S. military had coerced Gessner’s confession and the Stanley court had suspended Gessner’s constitutional protections to satisfy the needs of government.

Antitrust Standing after Apple v. Pepper: Application to the Sports Betting Data Market

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 584-593
Author(s):  
Ryan M. Rodenberg
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Sports Betting ◽  
Sherman Act ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
Data Market ◽  
Rule Set ◽  
The U.S

In Apple v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed a largely permissive view about whether certain potential plaintiffs have legal standing to pursue antitrust lawsuits in federal court. The Apple v. Pepper ruling provided important clarity about the scope of the so-called indirect purchaser rule set forth forty-plus years earlier in Illinois Brick. This paper first summarizes the key takeaways from the Apple v. Pepper decision released on May 13, 2019, positioning the ruling vis-à-vis other standing-related cases that have sometimes closed the courtroom doors to plaintiffs alleging anticompetitive conduct under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. This paper then applies the lessons from Apple v. Pepper to sports betting data, an emerging tech-focused market. This paper concludes by outlining how—and why—this market will likely be subject to antitrust scrutiny soon.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document