Cite as: 534 U. S. 327 (2002)
Opinion of Thomas, J.
is to regulate rates for attachments providing commingled cable television programming and high-speed Internet access, it is required to determine whether high-speed Internet access provided through cable wires is a cable service or telecommunications service or falls into neither category. See Part I, supra. The Commission does not claim to have taken this step. As a result, the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be vacated, and the cases should be remanded to the FCC with instructions that the Commission identify the specific statutory basis on which it believes it is authorized to regulate rates for attachments used to provide commingled cable television programming and high-speed Internet access: § 224(d), § 224(e), or § 224(b)(1).
For all of these reasons, I respectfully dissent from Parts II and IV of the Court's opinion.
ceiving a rate that is not "just and reasonable." This is because rates calculated pursuant to § 224(e)'s methodology are generally higher than those calculated pursuant to § 224(d)'s methodology. See n. 3, supra.
361
Page: Index Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35Last modified: October 4, 2007