Tag Archives: Appeal

Court to M2Z: No Free Lunch

By FHH Law on Posted in Internet
M2Z Networks has lost another bid for spectrum to build a nationwide wireless broadband network, as the U.S. Court of Appeals has rejected M2Z's petition for review of the FCC's 2007 denial of M2Z's bid.… Continue Reading

From the Horses’ Mouths

By FHH Law on Posted in First Amendment, Media
Elsewhere on this blog we have posted reports about the oral argument in FCC v. Fox, the first broadcast indecency case to reach the Supreme Court in 30 years. From our notes taken during the argument, we have mined the following nuggets:… Continue Reading

Court to FCC: Not Bad, But Try Again

By FHH Law on Posted in Unlicensed Operations and Emerging Technologies
By Mitchell Lazarus
703-812-0440
email

The day the D.C. Circuit decided ARRL v. FCC (the broadband-over-power-line case), I posted a brief summary of the decision.

The following is a more complete account, including background on past disagreements between the unlicensed-device industries and the amateur radio community.

---------------------------------------------

On April 25, an appeals court sent parts of the Broadband-over-Power-Line (BPL) rules back to the FCC for a second look.  The challenged rules remain in force in the meantime.

So-called Access BPL, the form at issue here, is a technology for delivering broadband, including high-speed Internet, to homes and businesses over the electrical power lines.  (Another kind, ...… Continue Reading

Court Questions BPL Rules

By FHH Law on Posted in Unlicensed Operations and Emerging Technologies
By Mitchell Lazarus
703-812-0440
email

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, responding to an appeal brought by the Amateur Radio Relay League (ARRL),  today sent parts of the Broadband-over-Power-Line (BPL) Rules back to the FCC for a second look.  The challenged rules remain in force in the meantime.

The court was unhappy with two aspects of the FCC's decision-making process.

First:  Among the many technical studies that played a part in the proceeding were five performed by the FCC itself.  The FCC placed these in the public docket, but redacted some passages that it said were "preliminary or partial results ...… Continue Reading
LexBlog