Glad to see Chevron Deference at the top here. Basically, the FCC can’t “rule” they can “dictate” and this isn’t a power explicitly granted by congress. It’s some made up judicial rules that say these federal agencies can do it
>Do you think this is an unreasonable interpretation? Or should Congress be required to list exactly what technologies are prohibited in this context and update that list every time something new comes around?
Not OP but this is the right question to ask. My answer is yes, congress is quite literally required to update statute to reflect modern technology (ensuring it conforms to the founding principles of course).
The alternative is requiring Congress to write every single rule explicitly and pass a law adapting to any change in circumstance or technology. In practice this means "no regulation" because Congress is pretty slow and adding more detail would only make them slower.
If and when agencies overstep that gets resolved through legal challenges.
> The Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the requirements of this subsection. In implementing the requirements of this subsection, the Commission — (A) shall consider prescribing regulations to allow businesses to avoid receiving calls made using an artificial or prerecorded voice to which they have not given their prior express consent; […]
Who do you think determines whether or not a particular voice is an 'artificial' voice? The FCC or the Courts? If it's the former, that's Chevron deference. You haven't quoted any legislation which expressly confers power on the FCC to interpret the law (which is typically the province of courts) and determine themselves whether or not a particular 'voice' is an 'artificial' ... 'voice'. But the legislation, at least arguably, impliedly confers that power per Chevron - like in Chevron, it was within the EPA's power to determine what a "source" of pollution was.
Compare Australia, where Chevron deference was rejected as forming part of Australian administrative law (Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135), it would be a question for the courts whether the agency was authorised to make this regulation, without deferring to the agency's interpretation. The agency does it's best to conform with the law, but it's ultimately the courts that say what the law is.
Of course government is incompetent and can't be reasonable in regulation? Is that the idea? How dare these corporations not be given minutely detailed regulations that they can easily tear apart to pollute to their convenience? You mean you want REASON in government and regulation?