South Carolina Business Law Blog

Introduction Attorneys and judges burn a great deal of time and energy debating and determining the issue of "standing": broad brush whether there is a "case or controversy" sufficient to invoke the power of a court to hear it. The wildly different factual scenarios in those cases applying standing requirements (compare Sea Pines v. SCDNR with Smiley v. SCDHEC ) sometimes make it difficult to square how and why standing exists in one case, but not in another. On April 5th, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a pair of opinions,  Lansdowne on the Potomac Homeowners Association, Inc. v. OpenBand at Lansdowne, LLC and Southern Walk at Broadlands Homeowner's Association, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC , applying the constitutional standing test to two very similar fact patterns and reaching different conclusions.  Comparing the analyses in the two cases may be helpful to practitioners. It is absolutely untrue that I decided to blog on this topic bec

Chairman Julius Genachowski of the Federal Communications Commission issued a statement yesterday outlining how the agency might regulate certain parts of the nation's broadband communications network. The General Counsel of the FCC also provided the legal framework for this approach in an accompanying statement . South Carolina's own Commissioner Mignon Clyburn also issued a statement . Very broad brush, the Chairman's plan seeks to protect customers and help promote fair competition for broadband services, while not stifling investment and innovation. His approach seeks to classify only the transmission component of broadband access service as a "telecommunications service" subject to FCC oversight. In plainer English, the FCC would regulate (to some extent) the pipes (broadband lines) used to deliver Internet services, but not the content being carried on them. As history has demonstrated, the FCC's proposals rarely foster consensus among inter

Davis, Wright Tremaine has penned an an excellent summary of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decision ruling that the Federal Communications Commission lacked authority to regulate Comcast's network practices for its high-speed internet services. One key takeway is that although the Court invalidated the FCC's approach in this particular case, the opinion (as noted by the FCC) did not categorically reject other statutory means by which the FCC might address "preserving an open Internet." Expect more FCC proceedings, litigation, or legislation addressing the FCC's authority to regulate high-speed internet access under the Federal Communications Act.