Talk:Comcast Corp. v. FCC

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

FCC Open Internet Order and Verizon vs FCC ruling

I think the section "The FCC's new net neutrality rules" should be renamed into FCC Open Internet Order 2010 or similar, because those rules are known under that name. Maybe, as that FCC Order has its own article, we don't really need this section. In the meanwhile I edited the section to reflect the ruling in Verizon vs FCC. --Mahuzu (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC (2016)

How does this case compare with United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC (2016), and how does this relate to FCC 17-60 on "Restoring Internet freedom"? Para. 20 of FCC 17-60 said "the D.C. Circuit vacated" the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order, because it conflicted "with the Commission's prior determination that broadband Internet access service was not a telecommunications service".

Am I correct that the key difference between the 2010 and 2016 rulings is the courts found it acceptable to classify broadband as a Title II telecommunications service but it was not acceptable to try to force "information services" to stop censoring their users' Internet usage?

In any event, I think both these articles could benefit from citing the other and explaining succinctly the primary reason for the differences in rulings. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of California, Berkeley supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]