WEBVTT - Bloomberg Law Brief: Request to Overturn Net Neutrality (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:02.440
<v Speaker 1>Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Lawn Brief,

0:00:02.480 --> 0:00:05.400
<v Speaker 1>exploring legal issues in the news, and this updates brought

0:00:05.400 --> 0:00:09.760
<v Speaker 1>to you by American Arbitration Association, International Trade or Business

0:00:09.760 --> 0:00:13.560
<v Speaker 1>Dispute Resolve Faster with the International Center for a Dispute Resolution,

0:00:13.840 --> 0:00:17.079
<v Speaker 1>the leader in alternative dispute resolution around the world i

0:00:17.239 --> 0:00:20.920
<v Speaker 1>c d R dot org. Today Bloomberg, Lahst dun Grasso,

0:00:21.000 --> 0:00:23.119
<v Speaker 1>and Michael Best discussed why A, T and T and

0:00:23.160 --> 0:00:26.840
<v Speaker 1>other broadband providers are asking the Supreme Court to overturn

0:00:26.960 --> 0:00:31.520
<v Speaker 1>the Obama Error net Neutrality rule, which bars Internet service

0:00:31.560 --> 0:00:35.440
<v Speaker 1>providers from slowing or blocking rivals content. They speak with

0:00:35.600 --> 0:00:39.120
<v Speaker 1>Enrico r a professor at Elon University School of Law,

0:00:39.520 --> 0:00:44.640
<v Speaker 1>and Daniel Lyons, a professor at Boston College Law School. Oh, Daniel,

0:00:44.960 --> 0:00:48.639
<v Speaker 1>what is their argument that the FCC made a mistake here?

0:00:49.600 --> 0:00:52.640
<v Speaker 1>So the there's a handful of arguments that are coming

0:00:52.760 --> 0:00:55.760
<v Speaker 1>up to the Supreme Court. The primary one is the

0:00:55.800 --> 0:01:00.480
<v Speaker 1>assertion that the agency simply had no authority to classify

0:01:00.600 --> 0:01:03.200
<v Speaker 1>I s p s as common carriers. The idea is

0:01:03.360 --> 0:01:06.000
<v Speaker 1>essentially that these are rules that were written originally to

0:01:06.080 --> 0:01:09.760
<v Speaker 1>govern the telephone network, and that although Congress was not

0:01:09.840 --> 0:01:13.520
<v Speaker 1>completely clear in the Telecom Act, which is the last

0:01:13.520 --> 0:01:18.360
<v Speaker 1>time it revisited these issues. Um that it's like the

0:01:18.480 --> 0:01:20.840
<v Speaker 1>likely sense of Congress was that these rules were not

0:01:21.959 --> 0:01:24.480
<v Speaker 1>rules that were intended to govern the Internet. That and

0:01:24.520 --> 0:01:27.760
<v Speaker 1>said the Internet was to be left with a light touch. Enrique,

0:01:28.040 --> 0:01:31.280
<v Speaker 1>the Internet and Television Association said this. I'd just like

0:01:31.400 --> 0:01:34.280
<v Speaker 1>you to react to it. The divided panel decision in

0:01:34.360 --> 0:01:38.240
<v Speaker 1>this case upheld a commission or that claims unprecedented authority

0:01:38.319 --> 0:01:41.959
<v Speaker 1>to regulate the Internet. That order was not the culmination

0:01:42.080 --> 0:01:46.240
<v Speaker 1>of deliberate process and reason decision making. What's your reaction

0:01:46.280 --> 0:01:49.120
<v Speaker 1>to that? You know, my reaction is that there there

0:01:49.240 --> 0:01:52.040
<v Speaker 1>is kind of something lurking underneath here. Uh, it's someone

0:01:52.120 --> 0:01:56.160
<v Speaker 1>that wasn't around before, and that's just to score such

0:01:56.280 --> 0:01:58.280
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I think a T and T is um

0:01:58.400 --> 0:02:02.520
<v Speaker 1>and then the other industry folks are are are latching

0:02:02.600 --> 0:02:06.360
<v Speaker 1>on to some statements that Justice courseus has made but

0:02:06.560 --> 0:02:11.040
<v Speaker 1>before before his confirmation, mostly concerning the level of deference

0:02:11.120 --> 0:02:15.200
<v Speaker 1>that courts should apply to agency interpretations of federal law.

0:02:16.160 --> 0:02:18.880
<v Speaker 1>Justice course, it's back when he was a judge and

0:02:19.160 --> 0:02:22.280
<v Speaker 1>a commentator was very skeptical of this idea. That courts

0:02:22.280 --> 0:02:26.239
<v Speaker 1>should defer to agencies. So the language that you just

0:02:26.360 --> 0:02:28.359
<v Speaker 1>read from the n C T A Brief, some other

0:02:28.520 --> 0:02:30.440
<v Speaker 1>arguments that Jennie referred to in the A T and

0:02:30.560 --> 0:02:33.359
<v Speaker 1>T brief, I believe are very much crafted with the

0:02:33.520 --> 0:02:37.120
<v Speaker 1>idea that Justice COURSEUS could take this net neutrality issue

0:02:37.200 --> 0:02:39.440
<v Speaker 1>and the and the decision of the d C Circuit

0:02:39.760 --> 0:02:42.959
<v Speaker 1>as an opportunity to say, uh, courts need to be

0:02:43.080 --> 0:02:46.919
<v Speaker 1>much more rigorous when courts, when lower courts come to

0:02:47.680 --> 0:02:51.519
<v Speaker 1>um split decisions on very contested issues. Uh, it's a

0:02:51.560 --> 0:02:55.079
<v Speaker 1>court job to step in and say affirmative and affirmatively

0:02:55.160 --> 0:02:59.280
<v Speaker 1>and declaratively exactly what the law should be and how

0:02:59.360 --> 0:03:03.359
<v Speaker 1>it should be in open died. That's Enrique Army, a

0:03:03.440 --> 0:03:06.560
<v Speaker 1>professor at Elon University School of Law, and Daniel Lyons,

0:03:06.600 --> 0:03:08.880
<v Speaker 1>a professor at Boston College Law School, speaking with the

0:03:08.880 --> 0:03:11.440
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Lah host doom Grasso and Michael Best. You can

0:03:11.480 --> 0:03:13.960
<v Speaker 1>listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall Street

0:03:14.040 --> 0:03:15.800
<v Speaker 1>Time here on Bloomberg Radio