Law Commons^™

Will Access Regulation Work?, Gerald R. Faulhaber

Federal Communications Law Journal

"The Enduring Lessons of the Breakup of AT&T: A Twenty-Five Year Retrospective."' Conference held at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on April 18-19, 2008.

The FCC is transitioning from a rate regulation regime to an access regime. A rate regulation regime gives all customers full access to network facilities (common carrier) at regulated rates-generally, rate base rate of return regulation. An access regime is one in which all competitors are given full access to incumbents' networks, with little or no retail rate regulation, thereby allowing competition (over incumbents' networks) to discipline the market. Is this a good idea? Is …

Reexamining The Legacy Of Dual Regulation: Reforming Dual Merger Review By The Doj And The Fcc, Philip J. Weiser

Federal Communications Law Journal

"The Enduring Lessons of the Breakup of AT&T: A Twenty-Five Year Retrospective."' Conference held at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on April 18-19, 2008.

A central challenge for competition policy merger review is to structure the analysis of merger remedies so that the antitrust agencies play an effective and central role, with regulatory agencies complementing-as opposed to overlapping or contradicting--their judgments. At present, the U.S. system sometimes veers towards a worst-case scenario where federal antitrust authorities-the FTC and DOJ-impose regulatory remedies that overlap with regulatory policy and regulatory agencies perform duplicative merger reviews and impose remedies unrelated to the …

"Fleeting Expletives" Are The Tip Of The Iceberg: Fallout From Exposing The Arbitrary And Capricious Nature Of Indecency Regulation, Dave E. Hutchinson

Federal Communications Law Journal

On November 4, 2008, the Supreme Court heard arguments in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, which centers on whether or the FCC's policy allowing fleeting expletives to be found actionably indecent is arbitrary and capricious. The Second Circuit found that the fleeting expletives policy is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of administrative law. The Supreme Court decision will provide much needed guidance for what constitutes a reasoned basis in the indecency regime's contextual approach. This Note argues that--despite the FCC's recognition that time and context changes the meaning of language-the FCC's indecency regime is at loggerheads with broadcasters because …

When The Flock Ignores The Shepherd-Corralling The Undisclosed Use Of Video News Releases, Jeffrey Peabody

Federal Communications Law Journal

Every time you sit down to watch the evening news, you see not only locally produced stories, but also pre-packaged, corporate-sponsored "video news releases" ("VNRs") that are nothing more than commercials in disguise. Unlike political advertising, which must comply with strict sponsorship identification rules, these VNRs remain unregulated. This Note discusses the failed "Truth in Advertising Act," and proposes mandatory disclosure and beefed-up enforcement as necessary steps in stemming the growing use of these "fake news" spots

Carl Ramey's Mass Media Unleashed, Henry Geller

Federal Communications Law Journal

Book Review: Carl R. Ramey, Mass Media Unleashed: How Washington Policy Makers Shortchanged the American Public (2007).

This superb book treats an important issue: the proper regulatory policy for broadcasting in the twenty-first century. In it, Carl Ramey critiques the Federal Communications Commission's public trustee and deregulatory market policies and suggests that to meet the dynamic market and technological changes of this new century we should, among other things, free commercial broadcasters completely from public trustee requirements and eliminate FCC enforcement of its ownership and related rules. Based on the long experience of a communications lawyer who knows so well …

Reassessing Turner And Litigating The Must-Carry Law Beyond A Facial Challenge, R. Matthew Warner

Federal Communications Law Journal

In recent decades, the must-carry rules have had a troubled constitutional history. After two sets of rules were struck down by the D.C. Circuit for violating the First Amendment rights of both cable programmers and operators, Congress revised the must-carry rules in the 1992 Cable Act. In 1997, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined that the congressional must-carry law was facially constitutional. However, does the Turner II decision preclude further First Amendment challenges to the must-carry law? This Note argues that the answer is no and that the time is drawing near for new challenges.