对第一份白皮书“通讯法案现代化”问题的回应

R. May, R. Epstein, J. Hurwitz, Daniel A. Lyons, James B. Speta, C. S. Yoo
{"title":"对第一份白皮书“通讯法案现代化”问题的回应","authors":"R. May, R. Epstein, J. Hurwitz, Daniel A. Lyons, James B. Speta, C. S. Yoo","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2389705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The House Energy and Commerce Committee has begun a process to review and update the Communications Act of 1934, last revised in any material way in 1996. As the Committee begins the review process, this paper responds to questions posed by the Committee that all relate, in fundamental ways, to the question: \"What should a modern Communications Act look like?\"The Response advocates a \"clean slate\" approach under which the regulatory silos that characterize the current statute would be eliminated, along with almost all of the ubiquitous 'public interest' delegation of authority found throughout the Communications Act. The replacement regime would have at its core a new competition-based standard that, except in limited circumstances, would require that the FCC's regulatory activities be tied to findings of consumer harm resulting from lack of sufficient competition. The FCC's authority to adopt broad anticipatory rules on an ex ante basis would be substantially circumscribed, and the agency would be required to rely more heavily than is presently the case on ex post adjudication of individual complaints alleging specific abuses of market power and consumer harm. Some aspects of the FCC's current jurisdiction, such as privacy and data security regulation, might be transferred to the FTC in light of the FTC's institutional competence in these areas.","PeriodicalId":377417,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response to Questions in the First White Paper, 'Modernizing the Communications Act'\",\"authors\":\"R. May, R. Epstein, J. Hurwitz, Daniel A. Lyons, James B. Speta, C. S. Yoo\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2389705\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The House Energy and Commerce Committee has begun a process to review and update the Communications Act of 1934, last revised in any material way in 1996. As the Committee begins the review process, this paper responds to questions posed by the Committee that all relate, in fundamental ways, to the question: \\\"What should a modern Communications Act look like?\\\"The Response advocates a \\\"clean slate\\\" approach under which the regulatory silos that characterize the current statute would be eliminated, along with almost all of the ubiquitous 'public interest' delegation of authority found throughout the Communications Act. The replacement regime would have at its core a new competition-based standard that, except in limited circumstances, would require that the FCC's regulatory activities be tied to findings of consumer harm resulting from lack of sufficient competition. The FCC's authority to adopt broad anticipatory rules on an ex ante basis would be substantially circumscribed, and the agency would be required to rely more heavily than is presently the case on ex post adjudication of individual complaints alleging specific abuses of market power and consumer harm. Some aspects of the FCC's current jurisdiction, such as privacy and data security regulation, might be transferred to the FTC in light of the FTC's institutional competence in these areas.\",\"PeriodicalId\":377417,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2389705\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2389705","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

众议院能源和商务委员会已经开始审查和更新1934年的《通信法案》,上一次实质性修订是在1996年。在委员会开始审查过程时,本文回答了委员会提出的问题,这些问题在根本上都与这个问题有关:“现代通讯法案应该是什么样子?”《回应》倡导一种“白纸黑字”的方法,在这种方法下,现行法规的监管孤岛将被消除,同时消除《通信法案》中几乎所有无处不在的“公共利益”授权。替代制度的核心将是一个新的基于竞争的标准,除了在有限的情况下,该标准将要求FCC的监管活动与缺乏充分竞争导致的消费者损害的调查结果联系起来。联邦通信委员会在事前采用广泛预期规则的权力将受到实质性限制,该机构将被要求比目前更多地依赖于对指控具体滥用市场力量和损害消费者利益的个人投诉的事后裁决。联邦通信委员会目前管辖权的某些方面,如隐私和数据安全监管,可能会根据联邦贸易委员会在这些领域的机构能力转移到联邦贸易委员会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Response to Questions in the First White Paper, 'Modernizing the Communications Act'
The House Energy and Commerce Committee has begun a process to review and update the Communications Act of 1934, last revised in any material way in 1996. As the Committee begins the review process, this paper responds to questions posed by the Committee that all relate, in fundamental ways, to the question: "What should a modern Communications Act look like?"The Response advocates a "clean slate" approach under which the regulatory silos that characterize the current statute would be eliminated, along with almost all of the ubiquitous 'public interest' delegation of authority found throughout the Communications Act. The replacement regime would have at its core a new competition-based standard that, except in limited circumstances, would require that the FCC's regulatory activities be tied to findings of consumer harm resulting from lack of sufficient competition. The FCC's authority to adopt broad anticipatory rules on an ex ante basis would be substantially circumscribed, and the agency would be required to rely more heavily than is presently the case on ex post adjudication of individual complaints alleging specific abuses of market power and consumer harm. Some aspects of the FCC's current jurisdiction, such as privacy and data security regulation, might be transferred to the FTC in light of the FTC's institutional competence in these areas.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Web Appendix to 'The Ramsey Rule at 100: Pairing Back the Overgrowth' Assessing COVID Impacts, Sustainable Finance, Current and Future Implications for Banks and Monetary Policy: 'Breaking the Tragedy of the Horizon, Climate Change and Financial Stability' A Political Economy Perspective of The Egyptian Competition Authority Social Security and Trends in Wealth Inequality Justifying Bad Deals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1