The paper aims to explore the contour of internet regulation with a thread of Brand X , which navigates through constitutionalism, separation of powers, as well as business and economic or political implications enshrined behind it. An exemplary insight with the Korean case was adverted that could lead to the comparative perspective of internet law and regulation for the future research. The research was conducted by employing qualitative investigation, mainly relying on textual analysis and documentary examination. The outcome of research generally corroborates with our assumption that i) the increasing administrative state will variegate the traditional interplay of three branches, ii) expert bureaucracy stands at the core of policy shaping because of the necessary new concept of market and policy specialization, iii) the role of US government is not only pioneering, but also influential as a regulator, but comparatively with differing national jurisdictions if not a negligible implications on the international competition or even conflict.
AITSPPP (2015). Act of the Information and Telecommunication Service Promotion and Protection of Privacy. ROK Stat. No. 13285.
Berkman, F. (2014). Title II Is the Key to Net Neutrality—So What Is It? The Daily Dot.
Brand X Internet Servs. v. FCC (2003). 345 F. 3d 1120 (9th Cir.).
Brand X Internet Servs. v. FCC (2006). 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 1573 (9th Cir., Jan. 23).
Brauer-Rieke, A. K. (2009). The FCC Tackles Net Neutrality: Agency Jurisdiction and the Comcast Order. Berkley Technology Law Journal, 24-1.
Cheng, J. (2009). Comcast Settles P2P Throttling Class-Action for $16 Million. ArsTechnica (Condé Nast).
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984). 467 U.S. 837. Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064.
Crawford, S. (2014). Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1988). Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law. Harvard Law Review, 1331-1387. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341398
EU Directive (1995). Directive 95/46/EC on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data.
Eveleth, R. (2014). Why Netflix Is “Slowing Down” Its Website Today. The Atlantic.
Federal Communications Commission (2005). New Principles Preserve and Promote the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet. DC: Federal Communications Commission.
Federal Communications Commission (2006). Re: Notice of Ex Parte Communication in the Matter of Review of AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corp Application for Consent to Transfer of Control, WC Docket No. 06-74. DC: Federal Communications Commissions.
Greenstein, S., Peitz, M., & Valletti, T. (2016). Net Neutrality: A Fast Lane to Understanding the Trade-Offs. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30, 127-149. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.2.127
Gross, G. (2015). FCC Votes to Overturn State Laws Limiting Municipal Broadband. CIO Magazine.
Hansell, S. (2008). F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage. New York Times.
Hu, E. (2014). 1 Million Net Neutrality Comments Filed, But Will They Matter? National Public Radio.
Kang, C. (2010). FCC Approves Net-Neutrality Rules; Criticism Is Immediate. The Washington Post.
Kim, C. W. (2015). New FCC Rules on the Net Neutrality. Seoul: Korean Information Society Development Institute.
Kim, D. H. (2009). Two Sided Market Framework for Validity Analysis of Network Neutrality Policy toward the Monopolistic Market Provider. In Studies on the Information and Telecommunication Policy (pp. 1-45). 16-2.
Kim, K. (2014a). The Constitution and Tripartite System of Government: From the Mutiny for the Limited Government through the Interbranch Subtlety. International Journal of Advanced Research, 2, 392-401. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2574711
Kim, K. (2014b). The Relationship between the Law and Public Policy: Is It a Chi-Square or Normative Shape for the Policy Makers? Social Sciences, 3, 137-143. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577832 https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20140304.15
Kim, K. (2014c). The Separation of Powers Principle: Is It a Lynchpin or Pushpin for the Voyage of American Public? International Journal of Advanced Research, 2, 887-895. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2573560
Kim, K. (2015a). On the Fundamentals of Law and Public Policy. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2593758
Kim, K. (2015b). Public Policy and Governance: Some Thoughts on Its Elements. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2589526
Kromer, J., Wiewiorra, L., & Weinhardt, C. (2013). Net Neutrality: A Progress Report. Telecommunications Policy, 37, 794-813.
Lachman, R. (2010). States and Power. Malden, MA: Polity.
LaFave, W. (2017). Principles of Criminal Law. West Academic.
Lee, S. Y. (2015). Net Neutrality and the Stock Market. http://blog.naver.com/taeun21/220004354658
Lohr, S. (2015). F.C.C. Chief Wants to Override State Laws Curbing Community Net Services. New York Times.
M.H. (2014). Net Neutrality: Faux Go-Slow. The Economist.
McCullagh, D. (2010). Court: FCC Has No Power to Regulate Net Neutrality. CNET.
Nagesh, G. (2014). FCC to Propose New “Net Neutrality” Rules: Proposal Would Allow Broadband Providers to Give Preferential Treatment to Some Traffic. Washington DC: Wall Street Journal.
Nate, A. (2009). FCC Chairman Wants Network Neutrality, Wired and Wireless. New York Times.
National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) et al. v. Brand X Internet Services et al. (2005). 545 U.S. 967.
Nunziato, D. (2009). Virtual Freedom: Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
NYT Editorial Board (2014). Why the F.C.C. Should Heed President Obama on Internet Regulation. New York Times.
Owen, T. (2015). Disruptive Power: The Crisis of the State in the Digital Age. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199363865.001.0001
Powell, M. (2004). Preserving Internet Freedom: Guiding Principles for the Industry.
Reggiani, C., & Valletti, T. (2016). Net Neutrality and Innovation at the Core and at the Edge. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 45, 16-27.
Ruane, K. A. (2009). Net Neutrality: The Federal Communications Commission’s Authority to Enforce Its Network Management Principles. Congressional Research Service.
Ruane, K. A. (2013). The FCC’s Authority to Regulate Net Neutrality after Comcast v. FCC. Congressional Research Service.
Staff (2014). Creating a Two-Speed Internet. New York Times.
Staff (2015). H. R. 114th Congress, 1st Session [Discussion Draft]—To Amend the Communications Act of 1934 to Ensure Internet Openness. U.S. Congress.
Stiegler, Z. (2012). Regulating the Web: Network Neutrality and the Fate of the Open Internet. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
Telecommunications Act of 1996. 110 Stat. 56.
Tim, W. (2003). Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 2, 141. http://ssrn.com/abstract=388863
Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2002). 535 U.S. 467 (pp. 489-490).
Verizon v. FCC et al. (2014). No. 11-1355 (D.C. Cir.).
Weil, N. (2014). FCC Will Set New Net Neutrality Rules. Computerworld.
WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC (2001). 246 F.3d (pp. 690-692).
Wyatt, E. (2014). Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules. New York Times.
Yoo, C. S. (2005). Beyond Network Neutrality. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 19. http://ssrn.com/abstract=742404
Yoon, J. S. (2010). Laws and Public Policy Concerning the Regulation and Promotion of Internet Service Industry. Justice, 121, 732-765.