Special Access Proceeding - Amendment (US Federal Communications Commission Regulation) (FCC) (2018 Edition) The Law Library presents the complete text of the Special Access Proceeding - Amendment (US Federal Communications Commission Regulation) (FCC) (2018 Edition). Updated as of May 29, 2018 In this Order on Reconsideration, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) amends the special access data collection, outlined in the Commission's Data Collection Order to reflect the approval received from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The Commission also announces that responses to the data collection are due by December 15, 2014 and addresses two petitions seeking reconsideration of the Data Collection Implementation Order released by the Bureau that clarified and amended the collection. These actions allow the Commission to move forward with the collection of data for a comprehensive analysis of the special access market. This collection is vital to the Commission's efforts to reform the rules applicable to the provision of special access services by incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) in areas subject to price cap regulation. This book contains: - The complete text of the Special Access Proceeding - Amendment (US Federal Communications Commission Regulation) (FCC) (2018 Edition) - A table of contents with the page number of each section

As the Supreme Court has recognized, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have become important venues for users to exercise free speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Commentators and legislators, however, have questioned whether these social media platforms are living up to their reputation as digital public forums. Some have expressed concern that these sites are not doing enough to counter violent or false speech. At the same time, many argue that the platforms are unfairly banning and restricting access to potentially valuable speech. Currently, federal law does not offer much recourse for social media users who seek to challenge a social media provider's decision about whether and how to present a user's content. Lawsuits predicated on these sites' decisions to host or remove content have been largely unsuccessful, facing at least two significant barriers under existing federal law. First, while individuals have sometimes alleged that these companies violated their free speech rights by discriminating against users' content, courts have held that the First Amendment, which provides protection against state action, is not implicated by the actions of these private companies. Second, courts have concluded that many non-constitutional claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services, including social media providers, both for certain decisions to host content created by others and for actions taken "voluntarily" and "in good faith" to restrict access to "objectionable" material. Some have argued that Congress should step in to regulate social media sites. Government action regulating internet content would constitute state action that may implicate the First Amendment. In particular, social media providers may argue that government regulations impermissibly infringe on the providers' own constitutional free speech rights. Legal commentators have argued that when social media platforms decide whether and how to post users' content, these publication decisions are themselves protected under the First Amendment. There are few court decisions evaluating whether a social media site, by virtue of publishing, organizing, or even editing protected speech, is itself exercising free speech rights. Consequently, commentators have largely analyzed the question of whether the First Amendment protects a social media site's publication decisions by analogy to other types of First Amendment cases. There are at least three possible frameworks for analyzing governmental restrictions on social media sites' ability to moderate user content. Which of these three frameworks applies will depend largely on the particular action being regulated. Under existing law, social media platforms may be more likely to receive First Amendment protection when they exercise more editorial discretion in presenting user-generated content, rather than if they neutrally transmit all such content. In addition, certain types of speech receive less protection under the First Amendment. Courts may be more likely to uphold regulations targeting certain disfavored categories of speech such as obscenity or speech inciting violence. Finally, if a law targets a social media site's conduct rather than speech, it may not trigger the protections of the First Amendment at all.

A detailed examination of how the underlying technical structure of the Internet affects the economic environment for innovation and the implications for public policy. Today—following housing bubbles, bank collapses, and high unemployment—the Internet remains the most reliable mechanism for fostering innovation and creating new wealth. The Internet's remarkable growth has been fueled by innovation. In this pathbreaking book, Barbara van Schewick argues that this explosion of innovation is not an accident, but a consequence of the Internet's architecture—a consequence of technical choices regarding the Internet's inner structure that were made early in its history. The Internet's original architecture was based on four design principles: modularity, layering, and two versions of the celebrated but often misunderstood end-to-end arguments. But today, the Internet's architecture is changing in ways that deviate from the Internet's original design principles, removing the features that have fostered innovation and threatening the Internet's ability to spur economic growth, to improve democratic discourse, and to provide a decentralized environment for social and cultural interaction in which anyone can participate. If no one intervenes, network providers' interests will drive networks further away from the original design principles. If the Internet's value for society is to be preserved, van Schewick argues, policymakers will have to intervene and protect the features that were at the core of the Internet's success.

(a) Design and construction. (1) Each facility or part of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of a public entity shall be designed and constructed in such manner that the facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if the construction was commenced after January 26, 1992. (2) Exception for structural impracticability. (i) Full compliance with the requirements of this section is not required where a public entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements. Full compliance will be considered structurally impracticable only in those rare circumstances when the unique characteristics of terrain prevent the incorporation of accessibility features. (ii) If full compliance with this section would be structurally impracticable, compliance with this section is required to the extent that it is not structurally impracticable. In that case, any portion of the facility that can be made accessible shall be made accessible to the extent that it is not structurally impracticable. (iii) If providing accessibility in conformance with this section to individuals with certain disabilities (e.g., those who use wheelchairs) would be structurally impracticable, accessibility shall nonetheless be ensured to persons with other types of disabilities, (e.g., those who use crutches or who have sight, hearing, or mental impairments) in accordance with this section.

Connect America Fund Universal Service Reform-Mobility Fund (US Federal Communications Commission Regulation) (FCC) (2018 Edition) The Law Library presents the complete text of the Connect America Fund Universal Service Reform-Mobility Fund (US Federal Communications Commission Regulation) (FCC) (2018 Edition). Updated as of May 29, 2018 In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) resolves the remaining petitions for reconsideration regarding the requirements for Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II). The Commission revises the language of its rule for collocation, and reduces the value of the letter of credit that a Mobility Fund Phase II support recipient is required to hold after the Universal Service Administration Company (USAC), together with the Commission, has verified that the MF-II support recipient has achieved significant progress toward completing their buildout and service provision requirements. The Commission affirms its Mobility Fund Phase II rules in all other respects. This book contains: - The complete text of the Connect America Fund Universal Service Reform-Mobility Fund (US Federal Communications Commission Regulation) (FCC) (2018 Edition) - A table of contents with the page number of each section