In the News

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in April that the FCC did not have legal authority to stop Comcast, the nation’s largest cable provider, from blocking its customers’ access to a file-sharing service called BitTorrent. The decision limited the FCC’s power over web traffic under the current law and gave the ability for Internet service companies to block or slow specific sites. For example, they could decide to charge video sites like YouTube to deliver their content faster to users. “That’s the worst case scenario,” said Scott Holladay, an economics fellow at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University. “The likelihood of that happening is very small.”

Look for a court case to drag out for months and possibly end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, said Michael Livermore , executive director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. “This decision is on shaky legal ground so it is completely possible it would not be upheld,” he said. “But this is going to be the deal for at least 18 months to a couple years — a court challenge would take a while. As a result, for broadband, this compromise could just end up kicking the can down the road since there’s a good chance it gets overturned and we’ll have the larger net neutrality fight again in two years.”

To his credit, DeMint may have a point buried underneath all that silly rhetoric, and it has to down with how the FCC enacted Net Neutrality in the first place. The New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity bemoaned [PDF] the fact that the FCC passed Net Neutrality not by “[invoking] it more robust regulating powers,” but that it “based the new rule on legal authority that was called into serious doubt by court decision earlier this year making the long term prospects for the rule quite poor.”

Michael Livermore talks to the hosts of KGO’s Noon News about the FCC’s decision on net neutrality

It’s now official. At 1:05 pm Eastern Time today the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to enact a controversial set of proposed rules on network neutrality, effectively getting the government into the business of regulating the Internet in ways it hasn’t done before. Congressional Republicans are already planning on holding hearings next year.

The New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity [PDF]has also expressed disappointment, calling the new rules “tepid,” and has focused on one specific aspect of the decision: managed services. What in the nine hecks are “managed services”?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said that “the FCC has failed to protect free speech and Internet openness for all users,” by not applying the same rules to wireless. At the New York University School of Law, the Institute for Policy Integrity called it “a batch of tepid new rules.”

This fall, NOAA released a draft policy to change all that—to streamline, codify, and make more transparent the penalties and fee structures for fisheries violations. Trouble is, a report released Monday by NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity indicates that NOAA’s new rules may actually have the opposite effect: encouraging rather than deterring overfishing.

A mini-firestorm erupted recently in response to the EPA’s attempt to stall on a regulation to clean up mercury pollution from industrial plants; environmentalists see the move as a political cave in the face of a newly empowered congressional opposition.

A new report from NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity out this morning calls on NOAA to rethink its plans for overhauling enforcement of the nation’s laws on over-fishing. The authors say NOAA’s proposed revisions are too lenient on some violators and don’t create the right incentives to obey the law.