In 2005, the Supreme Court heard the case of National Cable &

Telecommunications Association v. Brand XInternet Services. The case

centered on how the Telecommunications Act, interpreted and enforced

by the FCC, defined "information service" and "telecommunication

service." The difference in designation mattered because if cable Internet

were classified as a telecommunication service, cable companies would

be considered "common carriers" like phone companies and would

have to make their cable networks available for competitors to use as

well. Brand X, a small Internet provider, argued that cable Internet was

a telecommunication service, not an information service, and Brand

X should have access to the cables to be able to deliver faster Internet

service. The Court found the designation in the Telecommunications

Act vague, and by a 6:3 margin ruled that the FCC, as a congressionally

enabled commission, had the authority to determine the designation of

cable Internet as an information service.

(A) Identify the constitutional principle at issue in this case and in Marbury v. Madison. (See page 199.)

(B) Based on the constitutional principle identified in part A, explain why the facts of Marbury v. Madison (1803) led to a different holding than the holding in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand XInternet Services.

(C) Describe an action that members ofthe public who disagree with the holding in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand XInternet Services could take to limit its impact.