The FCC draft "restoring internet freedom" order cites studies to show the 2015 net neutrality order hurt the economy. Such arguments have been disputed, but court watchers agree for the most part that when legal challenges are filed, judges are likely to give the analysis little scrutiny. NCTA CEO Michael Powell told reporters Wednesday consumers will see no change due to the order. The National Hispanic Media Coalition said it expects to take the regulator to court, and states may as well.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Dec. 4-10:
With the FCC poised to declare "internet freedom," there is much disagreement about whether deregulated broadband providers will have the incentive and ability to engage in paid prioritization of traffic that favors some content and applications, potentially harming rivals and consumers. Cable and telco ISPs said they generally don't want to discriminate among data streams, even if they can, and an order to remove "utility-style" net neutrality regulation, which commissioners plan to vote on Thursday, will promote broadband investment and innovation. They said adequate safeguards remain, including at the FTC and DOJ, to curb harms to consumers or competition, but net neutrality advocates disagree. (In related news Monday, see 1712110050 on congressional rollback efforts and 1712110049 on an draft FTC-FCC ISP monitoring plan.)
With the FCC poised to declare "internet freedom," there is much disagreement about whether deregulated broadband providers will have the incentive and ability to engage in paid prioritization of traffic that favors some content and applications, potentially harming rivals and consumers. Cable and telco ISPs said they generally don't want to discriminate among data streams, even if they can, and an order to remove "utility-style" net neutrality regulation, which commissioners plan to vote on Thursday, will promote broadband investment and innovation. They said adequate safeguards remain, including at the FTC and DOJ, to curb harms to consumers or competition, but net neutrality advocates disagree. (In related news Monday, see 1712110050 on congressional rollback efforts and 1712110049 on an draft FTC-FCC ISP monitoring plan.)
ATLANTA -- The next several years represent an opportunity for CBP and the trade community to begin work on “Mod Act 2.0” legislation to set the stage for modernized customs processes over the next few decades, said Cynthia Whittenburg, deputy assistant commissioner in CBP’s Office of International Trade, at the East Coast Trade Symposium on Dec. 5. After 24 years under the original Customs Modernization Act of 1993, “we find ourselves once again inhibited by our current legislation and regulations,” she said. Judging by that law, which took five to seven years until final passage, the process could be a lengthy one, she said.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 27 - Dec. 3:
The World Trade Organization recently posted the following notices:
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1994 provides the premise that World Trade Organization members recognize non-market prices or costs aren’t suitable for antidumping comparisons, and China’s accession protocol to the WTO clarifies that China’s domestic prices and costs would be considered “distorted” for AD duty purposes, the U.S. said in a brief filed to the WTO. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative filed the third-party brief concerning China’s March request for a WTO dispute panel to examine the EU’s non-market economy treatment of China in AD duty cases (see 1703130037). Non-market prices or costs aren’t suitable for AD comparisons because they aren’t appropriate to use for determining price comparability, the brief says. China has asserted that the expiration of a provision in its 2001 WTO accession agreement required that WTO members automatically grant it market economy status beginning Dec. 11, 2016 (see 1703130037). As part of their non-market AD methodologies, the U.S. and the EU use “surrogate” third-country prices and costs to set artificial prices for Chinese companies to be used in AD rate calculations for China.
The Commerce Department on Nov. 28 announced it is beginning antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on common alloy aluminum sheet from China (A-570-073/C-570-074). The self-initiation marks the first time in a quarter century that the agency will begin AD/CVD investigations on its own behalf, without a request from domestic producers. Like in any other AD/CVD investigation, Commerce will determine whether imports of Chinese aluminum sheet is being sold in the U.S. at less than fair value or are illegally subsidized, and the International Trade Commission will conduct a concurrent investigation on whether there is injury to U.S. domestic producers.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 20-26: