Regulatory Disparity: The Constitutional Implications of Communications Regulations That Prevent Competitive Neutrality
|
| Title | Regulatory Disparity: The Constitutional Implications of Communications Regulations That Prevent Competitive Neutrality |
| Authors | |
| Abstract | In recent years, the communications industry has changed drastically as new technologies have created industry convergence. On its face, convergence is beneficial to the consumer because it provides more options when choosing services, which in turn should lead to decreased prices. However, convergence has also led to enormous problems in communications regulations. Traditionally, the FCC regulated the industry with regulations that focused on the type of service provider and the technology medium used to provide services. While this worked for many years, the recent onslaught of convergent technologies has led to an environment where companies selling essentially the same services to consumers face different regulations because they use different mediums of transmission. This leads to obvious competition problems because some companies have fewer restrictions and/or costs associated with their service offerings. At this point, the FCC has begun to update its regulations to conform with the newly converged industry, but it still has a long way to go. In the mean time, companies are using defective regulatory classifications to their benefit. This sort of a system is not only unfair, but it is unconstitutional. The United States has long adopted the idea that corporations are “persons” under the constitution, and for that reason, the constitution bestows equal protection guarantees upon them. Corporations have rarely challenged the FCC’s regulations on constitutional grounds because they would probably be valid if examined under rational basis review. Until now, the FCC could hide behind technological distinctions and antitrust concepts to protect its regulations from equal protection claims. However, with the convergence of markets, a valid argument could be made challenging the government’s interest in its regulations. If a corporation makes that claim, the courts will have to decide whether these regulatory distinctions further a legitimate government interest. If the courts take a closer look, they may realize that the distinctions are arbitrary and capricious and mandate regulatory parity on equal protection grounds. |
| Publisher | University Library System, University of Pittsburgh |
| Date | 2007-04-01 |
| Source | Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law and Policy Vol 7: VOLUME VII- FALL 2006/SPRING 2007 |
| Rights | 1. Author´s Grant of Rights in Work to Journal. a. The Author hereby grants to the Journal the right of first publication of the Work. b. The Author hereby grants to the Journal and its agents the royalty-free, nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons 3.0 License (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions: i. Attribution-other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the Author as indicated on the Journal´s Website; ii. Noncommercial-other users (including the Journal) may not use this Work for commercial purposes; iii. No Derivative Works-other users (including the Journal) may not alter, transform, or build upon this Work; with the understanding that any of the above conditions can be waived by or with the permission of the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain or subject to re-use as a matter of fair use or fair dealing or otherwise under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by this grant of rights. c. The Author authorizes the Journal to edit the Work prior to publication, but the Work shall not be published by the Journal unless it is acceptable in its final form to both the Author and the Journal. 2. Author´s Retention of Rights in the Work. a. The Author retains the copyright in the Work. b. The Author is permitted to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the Journal´s published version of the Work (e.g., post the Work to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), so long the subsequent publication contains an acknowledgement and credit of the first publication in this Journal. c. The Author is permitted and encouraged to post online a manuscript of the Work in institutional repositories or on a Website prior to publication of the Work, including but not limited to repositories maintained and/or hosted by SSRN and Bepress. The Author agrees on a best efforts basis to include with any such posting, upon publication of the Work, (i) a reference to the DOI (Digital Object Identifier, explained at http://www.doi.org/) assigned to the Work; (ii) a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal; and (iii) the citation to the published version of the Work. 3. Author´s Representations and Warranties a. The Author represents and warrants that to the best of the Author´s knowledge: i. the Work is the Author´s original work, and the Author has the power to convey the rights granted in this Agreement; ii. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party; iii. the Work has not previously been published, in whole or in part, except as mutually agreed to in writing by both the Author and the Journal. iv. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and v. the Work contains no matter that is defamatory, violates an person´s right of privacy, right of publicity, civil right, interest in confidential or proprietary information, or that is otherwise unlawful. b. Upon the Journal´s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Journal, at the Author´s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by the Journal to be covered by the principles of fair use. c. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold the Journal harmless from the Author´s breach of any of the representations and warranties contained in this Paragraph 3, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to or deriving from the Journal´s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content 4. Final Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Author and the Journal with respect to the publication and copyright of the Work. Any modifications of or additions to the terms of this Agreement shall be mutually agreed to in writing by both Author and Journal. |