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

Not a question of interpretation

[sting3r]

My neighbor is an attorney who is on retainer for one of the Baby Bells, and we were talking about the 10 lawsuits that were heading to the Supreme Court. He said that his clients were not concerned that the rulings would do anything besides strengthen the status quo, and that his client will be invariably pleased with the result. Why? Because the lawsuits are not questioning the interpretation of the law; rather, they are questioning the fairness of it. And the Supreme Court does not necessarily aim for the most fair result - its only obligation is to make sure the law is Constitutional, and to set a precedent for interpreting the law so that it fulfills the intent of Congress.

He said that any meaningful reform of the 1996 telecom act would need a lot of intervention from Capitol Hill, and the interests that oppose reform are giving like mad to our elected leaders.

-sting3r

Re:Not a question of interpretation

[dmarcov]

It's amazing how many people in the US do not understand what the Supreme Court actually does (or rather, is supposed to do).

The purpose of the court is not to determine whether the law was "a good idea" ... only that it meets VERY broad constitutional guidelines that were written in a different era (there's the power of strict constructionism, if anyone is interested). The court will most likely find all of the 1996 act constitutional - and thus only tinker at the edges. The power of Congress to make law in regards to interstate commerce is nearly absolute -- and over the past 75 years the commerce clause has come to embrace just about everything from civil rights to food inspection.

The poster is quite correct that if we expect meaningful change in the law, it will have to come from Congress, not from the court.

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.

too little too late for many startups

[kb3edk]

So Congress passes a law that deregulates telecom five years ago. Billions of dollars flow into capital markets to finance competition for phone service and broadband. But the Bells just get in the way and delay, delay, delay, until the startups flame out. I seem to recall reading a /. post a while back that said Verizon was happily paying fines for failing to open local phone circuits so their competition would burn through all their VC money just trying to stay afloat until they could get some revenue.

These lawsuits are nice in a judicial sense, but from a financial and business standpoint I don't think Verizon and the others are shaking in their boots much. This is pretty much just mop-up work to be done now that the competition has been crushed.

Let them monopolize.

[FFFish]

Let AT&T have its monopoly back. But this time, regulate the damn thing. Regulate hell out of it.

A consumer-regulated monopoly is a thing of beauty. The monopoly benefits: no competition, and a guaranteed profit.

More importantly, though, the consumer wins: nearly anything the consumer wants, the consumer gets. The only limiting factor is that the monopoly must be allowed a reasonable profit.

Fixed prices based on reasonable profits. Cool. You don't have to worry about your provider going tits up because they sold at a loss, and you don't have to worry about being gouged because there's only one provider.

Guaranteed service. Very cool. Make the telco responsible for the line all the way to the phone. No more $130/hr service calls.

Standardization. Also cool. We can force them to use the latest cell technology. Useful cellular service -- my god, it'd almost like living in Europe!

Infrastructure upgrades can be controlled: people in Podunk don't have to be shafted with decade-old crap pilfered from the big-city telco exchanges. Goodbye mechanical switches... at last!

Guaranteed coverage. Wouldn't that be too sweet?

Etc.

With a consumer-regulated monopoly, you don't rely on market forces to "push" the company into delivering new services or better prices. The company jumps through *our* hoops. As long as they're guaranteed a reasonable profit, they'll do anything we want.

It's win-win.

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

public goods

[shibut]

It is always amazing to me that a law that tries to get rid of monopoly/ies has left so much power in their hands without real controls on the amount of rents they can extract. It is especially strange since telecom lines in today's world are a public good, much like roads in the early 20th century. While there are toll roads, it would have been inconceivable to have all roads be toll in the 1950's, for example. I wonder if it is possible to argue in court that the nature of the service provided has changed and thus various other laws now apply to telecom lines (thus creating a conflict with the telecom law that must now be resolved by the supreme court).

karma 'ho'

[stud9920]

This link works better

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

Re:I hope they can control Ashcroft

[Fiver-]

Something about him bugs me.

Maybe the fact that his home state would rather elect a dead man as their Senator than him?