After listening to the Brand X argument this morning at the Supreme Court, this is my quick reaction:
"For the sake of sound communications policy in the digital broadband era, I hope the FCC and the cable industry prevail. Surprisingly, however, except for Justice Stephen Breyer's persistent questions, there was little discussion at the argument concerning the deference due the agency's interpretation regarding what, in my opinion, are inherently ambiguous statutory provisions - the definitions of "information" and "telecommunications" services. A key issue briefed in the case is whether the 9th Circuit erred in holding that the FCC's interpretation was entitled to no deference under the Supreme Court's Chevron decision that holds that agency's reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions should normally be upheld. In light of the ambiguity in the statute, this is a pretty good case for the Court to show some deference to the agency."