Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 1996 Telecommunications Act (1)
- Cable Act of 1984 (1)
- Cable Companies (1)
- Commerce Clause (1)
- Common Carrier Regulations (1)
-
- Cross-Carrier Ban (1)
- Due Process (1)
- Electronic Commerce (1)
- Eleventh Amendment (1)
- Eleventh Amendment Immunity (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Internet Transactions (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Local Government (1)
- Nexus (1)
- Section 253 (1)
- Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1)
- State Sales & Use Tax (1)
- Structural Regulation (1)
- Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1)
- Telecommunications Providers (1)
- Telephone Companies (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
State Sales & Use Tax On Internet Transactions, Sandi Owen
State Sales & Use Tax On Internet Transactions, Sandi Owen
Federal Communications Law Journal
The explosive growth of electronic commerce raises serious questions about the viability of the current state sales and use tax system. Sales via the Internet and other electronic means are changing both the form and substance of consumer transactions, and such sales often do not satisfy the traditional nexus requirement for state taxation because on-line vendors frequently lack physical presence in the purchaser’s home state. The inability to collect taxes on this growing segment of the retail sales market will impair states’ efforts to raise revenues and cause economically similar transactions to be treated differently. Consequently, Congress must act pursuant …
First Amendment Trump?: The Uncertain Constitutionalization Of Structural Regulation Separating Telephone And Video, Susan Dente Ross
First Amendment Trump?: The Uncertain Constitutionalization Of Structural Regulation Separating Telephone And Video, Susan Dente Ross
Federal Communications Law Journal
The Cable Act of 1984 contained a "cross-ownership" ban, which prohibited telephone companies from entering the local cable video market. Although the ban was challenged by telephone carriers on numerous grounds, the First Amendment was not the basis of any challenge until the mid-1990s when telephone companies sought to characterize themselves not just as carriers but as content suppliers, or "speakers," who were deprived of their right to speak as a result of common carrier regulations that were intended merely to control the economic structure of the communications industry. Using the First Amendment as a new-found constitutional weapon to challenge …
Balancing The Scales: The 1996 Telecommunications Act And Eleventh Amendment Immunity, Cynthia L. Bauerly
Balancing The Scales: The 1996 Telecommunications Act And Eleventh Amendment Immunity, Cynthia L. Bauerly
Federal Communications Law Journal
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 explicitly created a role for federal courts in the interconnection process. However, parties' ability to seek federal review of interconnection agreements is no longer as straightforward as the language of the Act implies. The Supreme Court's unnecessarily novel and narrow reading of Eleventh Amendment immunity in Seminole Tribe v. Florida renders unenforceable the federal review provisions of the Act against state regulatory commissions. While some interconnection agreements may find their way into federal court, for example, where a party seeking to interconnect sues an incumbent provider instead of the state commission, enforcement of a federal …
Section 253 Of The Telecommunications Act Of 1996: A Permanent Physical Appropriation Of Private Property That Must Be Justly Compensated, Jennifer L. Worstell
Section 253 Of The Telecommunications Act Of 1996: A Permanent Physical Appropriation Of Private Property That Must Be Justly Compensated, Jennifer L. Worstell
Federal Communications Law Journal
Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was promulgated in an effort to remove unnecessary regulation by local governments and open up competition among local phone companies, cable providers, and other telecommunications concerns. However, this provision effectively prohibits local governments from managing their rights-of-way. Furthermore, it violates modern Fifth Amendment takings jurisprudence, Section 253 and the first three FCC and court decisions examining it not only have jeopardized effective municipal management and resource allocation discretion, but also have usurped local governments' property rights without just compensation in explicit violation of the United States Constitution.