Supreme Court To Revisit 1996 Telecom Act This Term

Masem writes "In addition to the cases of online adult material mentioned yesterday, the Supreme Court is slated to hear several cases regarding the failure of the 1996 Telecommunications Bill and it's affect on the current market, as summarized by NYTimes (Free Reg Req). Namely, 10 high profile cases that were in the federal circuits are being condensed into 3 specific cases that the court will hear separately. The first is dealing with rates and fees the local bell can incur on competing services (including alternate carriers and DSL CLECs) that use their equipment. The second is whether there still exists differences between the concept of common carrier between phone and cable services since the types of service that both are providing are quickly merging. The third is in regard to the ability for the federal system to overrule state utility boards in their decison and penalty of telecom companies."

Comments

Non-registration link, and a choice quote

[tregoweth]

http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/10/01/technology/ 01TELE.html

Best quote from the article:

Seth P. Waxman, a former solicitor general in the Clinton administration, who argued cases involving the act, was more succinct. "It is the single most poorly drafted statute ever enacted by Congress," he said in an interview.

Re:No Regestration Link

[tomknight]

Hurrah, a registration-free link.

Before people ask (as they always seem to) why /. doesn't just post this in the story, could it be because they can be held responsible for the stories, but refuse responsibility for comments. That is, should the NYT see a link (such as the one above) in a comment, /. can denounce the poster (if it gets that serious), but should they see it in a story, then /. might find themselves liable. Liable for what, I don't know, but I'm sure a "good" lawyer would find something.

Tom