1. Front cover
2. As shown below, these limitations can be meaningful. For example, because the Commission must tie its invocation of Section 706 to a specific delegation of authority, this requirement probably prevents the Commission from extending regulation to stand-alone edge providers who are not otherwise engaged in jurisdictional activities as some fear. Similarly, because the Commission must tie its use of Section 706 to a specific delegation of authority in the Communications Act, Section 706 probably does not expand the Commission's authority to preempt state laws restricting municipal broadband deployment. Finally, these cases make clear that because the Commission classified broadband as a Title I information service, the Commission is prohibited by statute from imposing traditional Title II common carrier obligations on BSPs. That is, the agency may not regulate using the traditional "unjust and unreasonable" or "undue discrimination" standards. However, these cases also hold that the FCC may regulate the conduct of BSPs under a "commercially reasonable" standard, which, the courts' reasoned, permits individualized transactions and is thus sufficiently different from common carrier regulation to be lawful. That said, evaluation of any new "commercially reasonable;D C Third;Circuit's ruling in Verizon, the Commission now has an additional hook for ancillary authority under Section 706 to regulate broadband service providers,2014
3. Interview with Peter W. Singer
4. Market Definition and the Economic Effects of Special Access Price Regulation;E G. ; T R See;) and to be republished in 22 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS,2009