Read on Twitter
There's a story behind the "current law" that Chairman Pai claims ties his hands here. https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/1285286508900093959
The FCC issued an Order regulating intrastate prison phone rates, based on its authority to make sure these payments "fairly" compensated carriers.
The FCC then reasoned that these high rates ("outrageous," as Pai says) were not "fair."
The FCC then reasoned that these high rates ("outrageous," as Pai says) were not "fair."
But under Pai's leadership, the FCC decided that "fair" meant only fair to the carrier. Not to the consumer. So while these rates were unfair to inmates, they were more than fair to the carriers.
Just like that, an asymmetric interpretation of the statute ( @DanielEWalters_) evaporated the Commission's statutory authority.
This all happened while the Order under review was challenged. So, of course, the agency also stopped asking for Chevron deference of its initial interpretation.
And the FCC lost. Its Order regulating these intrastate rates was vacated.
And the FCC lost. Its Order regulating these intrastate rates was vacated.
This was so even though the D.C. Circuit readily acknowledged several market failures in the inmate phone call space. (The D.C. Cir. almost never acknowledges market failures!).
So when Pai says "current law" binds his hands. That's an interpretation of current law he sought, and he could've fought harder to correct. You know, based on the FCC's expertise.
-end-
-end-
