Talk:National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services

Background section lacks references, missing critical information.
Not nearly enough of the information in this section is sourced to anywhere. In particular, this statement:
 * When Cable and Telephone operators wished to have themselves exempted from the competitive requirements of the Telecommunications Act, which broke up AT&T, they pressured the FCC to declare that Internet was not a telecommunications service.

Is made without citation or a means to determine when or if that actually happened (it is not explicitly said that the FCC gave in to the pressure, although the article continues as if that were understood to have happened). Lacking this information gives impression that the FCC was directly involved in the case that is the topic of the article, compounded by the following statement, also unsourced:
 * The FCC lost in the three judge panel in the Ninth Circuit, which held that prior precedent of the Ninth Circuit interpreting the sections in questions bound it.

This is regarding the case Brand X Internet Services v. FCC from 2003.

Some of those sources regarding the FCC's decision to classify (cable) Internet service as an "information service" as opposed to a "telecommunications service": FCC Announces it's intention to reclassify cable internet service as an "information service"

https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2002/nrcb0201.html

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circut Court vacates the decision in Brand X Internet Services v. FCC (2003) that cable internet service is an information service, affirms that it is not a cable service, and remands the case for further action.

http://news.findlaw.com/wsj/docs/fcc/brandx100603opn.pdf

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts2003/brandx/20031006.pdf (same as above)

I'll try to work these into the article logically... John Oliver was right, this topic is fatally boring.220.108.152.121 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)