Constitutional basis of telecommunications law and policy

0

Governments must recognize constitutional property and the right to free speech in telecommunications law and policy.

The Constitution of the United States is the basic source of information for the approval of all legitimate government activities and, therefore, the source of the fight against illegal activities. Regulation of telecommunications operators and programming content Mandate Originally designed for market conditions such as 20th century monopolies, this is a control for broadcasters and cable operators.

Such governments have ordered at least distorting certain constitutional values ​​if they do not violate constitutional requirements.

However, the telecommunications market in the 21st century is driven by digital technology and Internet Protocol-based broadband services delivered through wired, wireless, satellite and hybrid delivery platforms. Vivacity and competitiveness. As a result, the tensions between many regulatory controls and constitutional requirements for telecommunications services are higher than ever. Today’s dynamic markets require not only technological advancements, but also modernized telecommunications laws and policies, consistent with a clear understanding of the US Constitution.

The Constitution belongs to the American Parliament. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must be followed in establishing and managing federal telecommunications laws and policies. These principles include private property, freedom of contract and freedom of expression, as well as support for the private sector and the open interstate commercial market.

Constitutional framework understood One of the main objectives of government is to protect the right to retain, use and acquire property. Various constitutional provisions, including due process clauses The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments help to secure private property rights. not only a matter of natural rights, but also promotes the productive use of resources.Property owner Plow They own it, so seek the most beneficial use of the property.

Federal regulations on telecommunications services are in many ways linked to private property. For example, the now obsolete net neutrality limit – this is effective Being enforced Cost management or the capacity required to carry traffic that broadband internet service providers do not want to carry deprives them of control over their assets . And this legacy rule imposes the transport of cable and satellite operators’ programs and other access requirements. Limit their ownership.

Moreover, in Framer’s understanding, freedom of expression is a right of nature. Indeed, the first patch protects freedom of speech against government interference. However, it does not allow the government to equalize speech or allow more speech by one party to the detriment of the rights of the other party. In addition, since communication technologies and services are widely used for voice distribution, enjoy the protection of freedom of expression in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Historically, there has been an inherent tension between federal regulations on telecommunications services and the First Amendment rights of providers of those services. For the Regulation of Oral Broadcasting and Cable Services What Broadcasting and Cable Service Providers May or Not Say, and What Content They Require Carry And The Terms Of Such Content. These regulations negate and undermine private editorial decisions.

For example, “must carry” regulations are needed Cable and satellite operators that offer multichannel video subscription services to broadcast content that you have not selected. These requirements simplify the editorial rights of these service providers for content programming and channel placement decisions. .

The Constitution does not formally enact or require a particular economic system, but Framer’s philosophical commitment Private property rights, reflected in certain provisions of the Constitution, are integral to supporting free market enterprises that promote freedom personal and human prosperity.

It is important to note that the presumed support for ownership of framers and subsequent generations of private ownership has been shown to be compatible with private enterprises, including the market for telecommunications services. Led by the private sector, broadband Internet service providers have successfully deployed wireline and wireless services. For example, investments in wireless networks between 2011 and 2019 totaled $ 261 billion. Capital investments made by the fixed line broadband service provider between 1996 and 2019 total more than $ 1.7 trillion.

The government should not try to compete with suppliers in the private market. For example, the United States Department of Defense recently suggested entering the commercial 5G wireless market will hurt taxpayers. Entering the Pentagon market could also undermine billions of private capital investments and encourage governments to grant more privileges than private sector providers. Governments should avoid such entry unless there are demonstrable and compelling national security interests that private sector competition cannot satisfy.

Similar financial and political issues are emerging State and local government efforts to own and operate broadband Internet networks in competition with private market providers. And when it comes to constitutional federalism, neither Congress nor the FCC should have a finger in the cake Accompanied by state law or state-level guarantees for local government broadband projects.

In addition to creating an environment that fosters the private sector, Framer has put in place a unified federal regulatory system to ensure an open interstate marketplace.Constitution Commerce Clause Empower Congress to regulate interstate commerce. are incompatible with the objectives of national trade policy. The executive and other first-generation American leaders and lawyers are recognized as the purpose of federal preemption in removing protective state-level trade barriers to interstate commerce.

However, the state is a constitutionally important protected authority within the jurisdiction. The state has an approval body for the placement of cell phone towers, antennas, and other wireless network infrastructure. However, federal law also places restrictions here. Wireless networks are an interstate commerce channel and communication method bar Describes regulatory measures that effectively prohibit the placement or modification of cell sites. To FCC Enforcement These restrictions and the courts primarily support the preventive authority of the FCC in this area.

Maintaining exclusive federal jurisdiction is very important for broadband Internet access services. Broadband internet networks on a daily basis Send Receive data traffic from interstate and foreign websites and hosts. In reality IntraIt is not possible to detect and isolate aspects of the state of these operations. Therefore, state regulation of broadband networks is inevitable. charge IntelligenceState Department of Commerce.

Under the Communication Act, information services (electronic services that generate, process, and store data, among other functions) are between jurisdictions. The FCC shares this view, dating back to at least 2002 cable modems. order..In fact, the jurisdiction of today’s information services, formerly known as the Extended Services Interstate Highway Telecommunications Act, dates directly back to the originality of FCC in 1996. Computer II Decision in the early 1980s.

Conflict between the agile and free market-oriented federal policy on interstate information services and the law on state network neutrality To the effect It is clear to impose regulations on public services on these same services.

Congress and the FCC should maintain a unified regulatory policy for broadband Internet services, taking into account the legal context of commercial and supremacy clauses. Such an approach has been implemented since the adoption of “Restore Internet Freedom” in 2017. Ordinance— Facilitates the investment and innovation essential to the creation and implementation of a robust Internet network of the Internet. private sector.

A member of Congress swears to support the Constitution. Therefore, they should reject laws that endanger the private property rights and freedom of speech that underpin free business and the free market. Members of the FCC and other federal authorities who take the same constitutional oath should also strive to avoid even a potential violation of constitutional rights.

Seth L. Cooper He is Director of Policy Research and Senior Fellow of the Free State Foundation.


Source link

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.