The U.S. Supreme Court case National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 2004, revolved around the classification of cable broadband internet service by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC had classified it as an "information service" rather than a "telecommunications service," which meant that it was not subject to certain regulatory requirements under the Communications Act of 1934. Brand X Internet Services and other companies challenged this decision in court, arguing that cable broadband should be considered a telecommunications service due to its functionally equivalent nature with DSL services which were regulated as such at that time. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the FCC's classification in a 6-3 decision stating that courts must defer to reasonable interpretations made by administrative agencies like FCC when there is ambiguity about how laws apply to new technologies or circumstances.

The dissenting opinion in the case of National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services argued that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had overstepped its authority by classifying cable broadband as an "information service" rather than a "telecommunications service". This classification exempted it from certain regulations applicable to telecommunications services, such as sharing their networks with competitors. The dissenters believed this decision was not based on a reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory language, but instead represented a policy choice made by the FCC. They also expressed concern about deferring too much power to regulatory agencies like the FCC and warned against allowing these bodies to shape important policies without clear guidance from Congress. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's view that previous court decisions did not bind the FCC’s interpretation of its own jurisdiction under Chevron deference doctrine.