## Facts

- The Communications Act distinguishes “telecommunications service” (Title II common-carrier regulation) from “information service” (Title I, generally not subject to common-carrier duties).
- In 2002, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling classifying cable modem broadband Internet access as a single, integrated “information service,” not a “telecommunications service.”
- Independent ISPs and other challengers disputed the FCC’s classification, arguing that cable modem service includes a separable transmission offering that should be treated as “telecommunications service.”
- The Ninth Circuit vacated the FCC’s decision in relevant part, relying on its prior precedent that treated cable modem service as including a “telecommunications service.”
- The Supreme Court granted review and considered whether the FCC’s interpretation was lawful and whether the court of appeals should have deferred to the agency.

## Issues

1. Whether the Communications Act unambiguously classifies cable modem broadband as a “telecommunications service” or an “information service.”
2. Whether the FCC’s classification of cable modem service as an “information service” is a reasonable interpretation entitled to deference under *Chevron*.
3. Whether a prior judicial interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision forecloses a later, reasonable agency interpretation reaching a different result.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in a 6–3 decision.
- The Court held the statute is ambiguous as applied to cable modem service and the FCC’s classification as an “information service” was reasonable.
- The Court held that *Chevron* deference applied to the FCC’s interpretation.
- The Court held that a prior judicial construction controls only if the earlier court determined the statute was unambiguous; otherwise, a later reasonable agency interpretation may supersede the court’s prior reading.
- The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to defer based on its earlier precedent, because that precedent did not establish unambiguous statutory meaning.

## Legal Principles

- Under *Chevron*, courts first ask whether Congress has spoken clearly to the precise question; if not, courts defer to a reasonable agency interpretation.
- Statutory ambiguity permits agencies to choose among reasonable interpretations within the statutory framework.
- A prior judicial interpretation of an ambiguous statute does not bar a later, reasonable agency interpretation unless the prior decision held the statute’s meaning was unambiguous.
- The FCC may reasonably treat cable modem Internet access as an integrated offering in which the transmission component is not separately offered to the public for a fee as a standalone telecommunications service.
- The Communications Act does not necessarily require identical regulatory treatment across broadband technologies, so long as the agency’s classification choices are reasonable under the statute.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the FCC’s decision to classify cable modem broadband as an “information service” and clarified that reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes receive *Chevron* deference even when they differ from earlier judicial constructions that did not declare the statute unambiguous.


Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005)