47 U.S.C. § 257

Market entry barriers proceeding

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Elimination of barriers

Within 15 months after February 8, 1996, the Commission shall complete a proceeding for the purpose of identifying and eliminating, by regulations pursuant to its authority under this chapter (other than this section), market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the provision and ownership of telecommunications services and information services, or in the provision of parts or services to providers of telecommunications services and information services.

(b) National policy

In carrying out subsection (a), the Commission shall seek to promote the policies and purposes of this chapter favoring diversity of media voices, vigorous economic competition, technological advancement, and promotion of the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 257, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title I, § 101(a), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 77; amended Pub. L. 115–141, div. P, title IV, § 402(f), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1089.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original “this Act”, meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

2018—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 115–141 struck out subsec. (c). Text read as follows: “Every 3 years following the completion of the proceeding required by subsection (a), the Commission shall review and report to Congress on—

“(1) any regulations prescribed to eliminate barriers within its jurisdiction that are identified under subsection (a) and that can be prescribed consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity; and

“(2) the statutory barriers identified under subsection (a) that the Commission recommends be eliminated, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases, 1998–2019 · leading case: Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 7× “Petitioners challenge the Commission’s legal authority to issue a transparency rule under 47 U.S.C. § 257 . Instead, Petitioners argue that the Commission should have adopted the rule under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act.”

United States Telecom Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Although Judge Silberman would have upheld them on the basis of 47 U.S.C. § 257 , see 740 F.3d at 668 n.9, they are equally sustainable as ancillary to a narrow reading of § 706, confining it, as Judge Silberman would have, to remedying problems derived from market power.”

Verizon v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “The Commission is required to make triennial reports to Congress on “market entry barriers” in information services, 47 U.S.C. § 257 , and requiring disclosure of network management practices appears to be reasonably ancillary to that duty.”

Comcast Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 47 U.S.C. § 257 (a). Although the section 257 proceeding is now complete, that provision also directs the Commission to report to Congress every three years on any remaining barriers.”

Superior Commc'ns v. City of Riverview, Mich., 881 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “We also noted that another provision of the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 257 , which “is devoted entirely to mandating FCC identification and review of ‘entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses’ ” in telecommunications, “strengthen[s] the view that the…”

Neil Ellis v. Tribune Television Co., Docket No. 05-1983-Cv, 443 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006). “§ 257 (b) (delineating a "national policy” that "the Commission shall seek to promote the policies and purposes of this chapter favoring diversity of media voices, vigorous economic competition, technological advancement, and promotion of the public interest, convenience, and…”

Council Tree Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 503 F.3d 284 (3rd Cir. 2007). “§ 309 (j), and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 257 ; and (3) not in compliance with the *287 Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.”

Tcg Detroit, (98-2034), (98-2035) v. City of Dearborn, (98-2034),third-Party (98-2035), Ameritech Michigan, Inc., Third-Party (98-2035), 206 F.3d 618 (3rd Cir. 2000). “” 47 U.S.C. § 257 (a). This would seem on its face to strengthen the view that the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over violations of § 253(a).”

Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 224 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (D.N.M. 2002). “” 47 U.S.C. § 257 (a). The scope of the preemptive language of Section 253 and the administrative remedies provided in the statute both reflect a carefully crafted balance between deregulating the telecommunications market at the federal level and preserving state and local…”

Qwest Commc'ns Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 202 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2001). “47 U.S.C. § 257 (a)) (c). See GST Tucson, 950 F.”

Valuevision Int'l, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 149 F.3d 1204 (D.C. Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “§ 604 (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996), and § 257 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 257 (a), as additional reasons why the Commission improperly failed to consider the interests of leased access programmers.”

Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 153 F.3d 523 (8th Cir. 1998). “The FCC counters that its objective was to drive access charges toward competitive levels in a way that was pragmatic, would preserve universal service, would avoid unnecessary economic dislocation, and was consonant with Congress’s directive that the Commission replace…”

Show all 18 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.