DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-54 Before the Federal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-54 Before the Federal Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-54 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Business Data Services in an Internet Protocol ) WC Docket No. 16-143 Environment ) ) Investigation of Certain Price Cap Local Exchange ) WC Docket No. 15-247 Carrier Business Data Services Tariff Pricing Plans ) ) Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange ) WC Docket No. 05-25 Carriers ) ) AT&T Corporation Petition for Rulemaking to ) RM-10593 Reform Regulation of Incumbent Local Exchange ) Carrier Rates for Interstate Special Access Services ) TARIFF INVESTIGATION ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Comment Date: June 28, 2016 Reply Comment Date: July 26, 2016 Adopted: April 28, 2016 Released: May 2, 2016 By the Commission: Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel issuing separate statements; Commissioner Pai and O’Rielly dissenting and issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Para. I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 A. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 11 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 12 A. Business Data Service Connects Business ..................................................................................... 12 B. The Business Data Services Rulemaking Proceeding .................................................................... 16 1. Price Cap Regulation of Business Data Services .................................................................... 16 2. CALLS Plan ............................................................................................................................ 19 3. AT&T Petition for Rulemaking and the 2005 NPRM ............................................................. 20 4. The GAO Report ..................................................................................................................... 22 5. Forbearance Actions Starting in 2006 ..................................................................................... 24 6. Bureau Actions in 2009 to 2011 .............................................................................................. 26 7. The Commission Suspends the Pricing Flexibility Rules ....................................................... 28 8. The Bureau Implements the Data Collection .......................................................................... 29 9. Technology Transitions Rulemaking ...................................................................................... 38 C. 2015 Collection Overview ............................................................................................................. 39 III. BUSINESS DATA SERVICES INDUSTRY OVERVIEW ................................................................ 44 A. Business Data Services Technology .............................................................................................. 45 Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-54 B. Facilities-Based Suppliers of Business Data Services ................................................................... 51 C. Other Providers .............................................................................................................................. 67 D. Business Data Services Purchasers ................................................................................................ 70 E. Increasing Data Demands .............................................................................................................. 77 F. Increasing Demand for Ethernet Services ...................................................................................... 80 IV. TARIFF INVESTIGATION ORDER .................................................................................................. 86 A. Additional Background .................................................................................................................. 89 B. All-or-Nothing Requirements ........................................................................................................ 95 C. Shortfall Penalties ........................................................................................................................ 115 D. Early Termination Penalties ......................................................................................................... 141 V. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ................................................................... 159 A. Competition Analysis................................................................................................................... 160 1. Overview ............................................................................................................................... 160 2. Analysis as Proposed ............................................................................................................. 166 3. Economic Analysis Submitted by Parties .............................................................................. 170 4. Our Approach ........................................................................................................................ 186 5. Product Markets .................................................................................................................... 189 6. Customer Markets ................................................................................................................. 199 7. Geographic Markets .............................................................................................................. 204 8. Concentration by Any Measure Appears High in This Industry ........................................... 216 9. Entry and Entry Barriers ........................................................................................................ 224 10. Evidence of Market Power in the Delivery of DS1 and DS3 Services and Lack Thereof for Higher Bandwidth Services................................................................................ 237 B. New Technology Neutral Regulatory Framework for Business Data Services ........................... 256 C. Statutory Authority for New Regulatory Framework .................................................................. 261 D. Competitive Market Test ............................................................................................................. 270 1. Business Data Service Definition .......................................................................................... 279 2. Multi-Factor Competitive Market Test – Relevant Market(s) and Test Criteria ................... 280 3. Competitive Market Test in Application ............................................................................... 296 4. Post-Determination Process .................................................................................................. 300 5. Regulation for Provider(s) in Areas Determined Non-Competitive ...................................... 308 E. Rules Applying to All Markets .................................................................................................... 312 1. Non-Disclosure Agreements ................................................................................................. 313 2. Scope of Application of Terms and Conditions Requirements Adopted in the Tariff Investigation Order ................................................................................................................ 321 F. Rules Applying to Non-Competitive Markets ............................................................................. 344 1. Price Cap Regulation ............................................................................................................. 345 2. Anchor or Benchmarking Pricing .......................................................................................... 420 3. Wholesale Pricing.................................................................................................................. 441 4. Terms and Conditions ........................................................................................................... 447 G. Alternative Approaches to Reforming BDS That Fulfill Core Goals .......................................... 492 H. Deregulation of the Pricing Process ............................................................................................. 497 1. Replacement of Pricing Flexibility Rules.............................................................................. 499 2. Additional Regulatory Incentives for Price Cap Carriers ...................................................... 503 I. Forbearance Grants and Deemed Grants ..................................................................................... 513 1. Verizon Deemed Grant .......................................................................................................... 515 2. Other Forbearance Actions .................................................................................................... 518 3. Legal Standard and Procedure ............................................................................................... 520 J. Monitoring the Marketplace Going Forward ............................................................................... 522 1. Mandatory Periodic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The US Experiment with Government Ownership of the Telephone
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 4-1-2013 The Wires Go to War: The U.S. Experiment with Government Ownership of the Telephone System During World War I Michael A. Janson Federal Communications Commission Christopher S. Yoo University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Communications Law Commons, Economic History Commons, Legal History Commons, Other Business Commons, Policy History, Theory, and Methods Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons, and the United States History Commons Repository Citation Janson, Michael A. and Yoo, Christopher S., "The Wires Go to War: The U.S. Experiment with Government Ownership of the Telephone System During World War I" (2013). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 467. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/467 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Articles The Wires Go to War: The U.S. Experiment with Government Ownership of the Telephone System During World War I Michael A. Janson* & Christopher S. Yoo** One of the most distinctive characteristics of the U.S. telephone system is that it has always been privately owned, in stark contrast to the pattern of government ownership followed by virtually every other nation. What is not widely known is how close the United States came to falling in line with the rest of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Richmond Division
    Case 20-32299-KLP Doc 1167 Filed 12/18/20 Entered 12/18/20 15:05:39 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 35 Dennis F. Dunne, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) Tyler P. Brown, Esq. (VSB No. 28072) Matthew Brod, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) Justin F. Paget, Esq. (VSB No. 77949) Shivani Shah, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) Jennifer E. Wuebker, Esq. (VSB No. 91184) MILBANK LLP HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 55 Hudson Yards Riverfront Plaza, East Tower New York, New York 10001 951 East Byrd Street Telephone: (212) 530-5000 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Facsimile: (212) 530-5219 Telephone: (804) 788-8200 Facsimile: (804) 788-8218 Andrew M. Leblanc, Esq. (pro hac vice) MILBANK LLP 1850 K Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 835-7500 Co-Counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) INTELSAT S.A., et al.,1 ) Case No. 20-32299 (KLP) ) Debtors. ) (Jointly Administered) ) FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. LEBLANC IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 328(A) AND 1103(A) AND FED. R. BANKR. P. 2014 AND 2016 FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE RETENTION AND EMPLOYMENT OF MILBANK LLP AS COUNSEL, EFFECTIVE AS OF MAY 28, 2020 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Andrew M. Leblanc, declare that the following is true to the best of knowledge, information and belief: 1 Due to the large number of Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, for which joint administration has been granted, a complete list of the Debtor entities and the last four digits of their federal tax identification numbers is not provided herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Dismantling Digital Deregulation: Toward a National Broadband Strategy
    DISMANTLING DIGITAL DEREGULATION: TOWARD A NATIONAL BROADBAND STRATEGY By S. Derek Turner DISMANTLING DIGITAL DEREGULATION: TOWARD A NATIONAL BROADBAND STRATEGY TABLE OF CONTENTS THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE STREAMED 5 Abandoning the Commitment to Competition 7 The FCC’s Premature Deregulation 9 Making Up for Lost Time: A National Broadband Plan 10 DEFINING AMERICA’S BROADBAND PROBLEM 14 The American Decline 15 The U.S. Duopoly Fails to Deliver 19 The Digital Divide Persists as Broadband Becomes an Essential Service 23 Why Some States Are Falling Behind in Broadband Adoption 25 America’s Broadband Failures Are the Result of Policy Failures 27 AMERICA’S BROADBAND PROBLEM: COMPETITION 28 The Computer Inquiries and Competition Policy 30 From Computer II to the 1996 Telecom Act 32 Implementing and Undermining the 1996 Telecom Act 33 The Rest of the World Takes a Different Path 37 Cable TV and the Beginning of the End of Broadband Competition 39 The FCC Kills the Commitment to Competition 42 Platform Competition: Always Right Around the Corner 47 The FCC’s Blindness to Abuses of Market Power 52 FCC Endorses Monopoly Power in the Middle-Mile and Special Access Markets 55 The FCC’s Premature Deregulation of the High-Capacity Broadband Market 59 AMERICA’S BROADBAND PROBLEM: OPENNESS 62 Nondiscrimination and Content Control 63 The FCC Abandons Openness 65 The Early Network Neutrality Debate 68 The Evolution of the Network Neutrality Debate 71 The Case Against Comcast 73 Net Neutrality and the Need for a Fifth Principle 75 Dealing with Managed Services
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Telecom Meltdown for a Listing of Recent Titles in the Artech House Telecommunications Library, Turn to the Back of This Book
    The Great Telecom Meltdown For a listing of recent titles in the Artech House Telecommunications Library, turn to the back of this book. The Great Telecom Meltdown Fred R. Goldstein a r techhouse. com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the U.S. Library of Congress. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Goldstein, Fred R. The great telecom meltdown.—(Artech House telecommunications Library) 1. Telecommunication—History 2. Telecommunciation—Technological innovations— History 3. Telecommunication—Finance—History I. Title 384’.09 ISBN 1-58053-939-4 Cover design by Leslie Genser © 2005 ARTECH HOUSE, INC. 685 Canton Street Norwood, MA 02062 All rights reserved. Printed and bound in the United States of America. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. All terms mentioned in this book that are known to be trademarks or service marks have been appropriately capitalized. Artech House cannot attest to the accuracy of this information. Use of a term in this book should not be regarded as affecting the validity of any trademark or service mark. International Standard Book Number: 1-58053-939-4 10987654321 Contents ix Hybrid Fiber-Coax (HFC) Gave Cable Providers an Advantage on “Triple Play” 122 RBOCs Took the Threat Seriously 123 Hybrid Fiber-Coax Is Developed 123 Cable Modems
    [Show full text]
  • A Comment on Competition and Controversy in Local Telecommunications Howard A
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 50 | Issue 6 Article 7 1-1999 A Comment on Competition and Controversy in Local Telecommunications Howard A. Shelanski Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Howard A. Shelanski, A Comment on Competition and Controversy in Local Telecommunications, 50 Hastings L.J. 1617 (1999). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol50/iss6/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. A Comment on Competition and Controversy in Local Telecommunications by HOWARD A. SHELANSKI* The principal goal of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is to open the market for local telephone service to competition. So far, however, the statute has attracted headlines more for generating legal controversy than for creating economic competition. The disputes that have commanded such attention and colored public discussion of the Act involve, at their core, the Federal Communications Commission's interpretation of provisions requiring incumbent local carriers to make parts of their proprietary networks available for use by new entrants. While some observers blame litigation and non- compliance with these "network unbundling" provisions for delaying implementation of a generally sound piece of legislation,' others contend either that the FCC's implementation of the unbundling requirements is impermissible and onerous or that regulators have not gone far enough to help new competitors.2 Given the resources devoted to disputes over the Act, it would be easy to suppose, as a variety of commentators have,3 that the success of the 1996 Act depends on how courts and regulators resolve * Acting Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley (on leave 1999-2000) and Chief Economist, Federal Communications Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Is India Ready to Seize a USD 4.5 Trillion M2M Opportunity?
    Machine-to-Machine: Vision 2020 Is India ready to seize a USD 4.5 trillion M2M opportunity? TeleTech 2013 www.deloitte.com/in Contents Foreword 3 Message from Industry Mentor 4 Overview 5 M2M from the Telecom Operators Perspective 9 M2M in Automobile 14 M2M in Agriculture 24 M2M in Home Appliances 29 M2M in Industrial Products Manufacturing 35 M2M in Energy & Utilities 40 M2M in Healthcare Sector 48 M2M in Retail Sector 53 About Deloitte 57 About CII 58 About MIT School of Telecom Management 59 2 Foreword Machine-to-machine (M2M) would make those things However, for M2M to gain acceptance among the possible and affordable, which are currently not feasible general populace, service providers and others players in to be delivered, in a vast country like India. Technologies the value chain are required to deliver applications that that enable M2M communication such as GPS unit, bring tangible value to peoples’ lives. RFID, GPRS modules, etc. have much to offer to the developing world towards improving quality of life. In Several barriers, however, have the potential to fact, these next-generation communication technologies slowdown the development and adoption of M2M may well originate in the larger growth markets of the applications. Deployment of IPv6, sensor energy, developing world, particularly – China and India. standards in terms of security, privacy and architecture, current low-cost business models, network upgrades M2M can help in achieving many Millennium and regulatory compliances will pose challenges for all Development Goals of the United Nations through players in the M2M ecosystem. Since M2M technologies useful applications for medical diagnosis and treatment, would cater to several industries such as healthcare, cleaner water, improved sanitation, energy conservation, education, automotive, agriculture, telecom networks the export of commodities and food security.
    [Show full text]
  • Enabling the Internet of Things for Australia Measure, Analyse, Connect, Act
    COMMUNICATIONS ALLIANCE LTD Enabling the Internet of Things for Australia Measure, Analyse, Connect, Act Written by Geof Heydon and Frank Zeichner October 2015 Communications Alliance Internet of Things Think Tank An Industry Report commissioned by the Communications Alliance Internet of Things Think Tank Executive Council First published: October 2015 The Communications Alliance Internet of Things Think Tank was formed in May 2015. The Think Tank’s vision is to be a leading ICT industry initiative under a broad industry framework shaping the regulatory framework to harness for Australian industry the opportunities generated by the internet of Things. The Think Tank aims to define the IoT eco-system, inform and enable Australian companies to exploit the business opportunities afforded by IoT technology and services. Disclaimers 1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Industry Report, Communications Alliance disclaims responsibility (including where Communications Alliance or any of its officers, employees, agents or contractors has been negligent) for any direct or indirect loss, damage, claim, or liability any person may incur as a result. 2) The above disclaimers will not apply to the extent they are inconsistent with any relevant legislation. Copyright © Communications Alliance Ltd 2015 This document is copyright and must not be used except as permitted below or under the Copyright Act 1968. You may reproduce and publish this document in whole or in part for your or your organisation’s own personal or internal compliance, educational or non-commercial purposes. You must not alter or amend this document in any way. You must not reproduce or publish this document for commercial gain without the prior written consent of Communications Alliance.
    [Show full text]
  • Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Limited Annual Report 2019-20 Board’S Report
    BOARD OF DIRECTORS Mr. Ashwani Lal : Whole Time Director Mr. Krishna Chandra Reddy : Whole Time Director Ms. Lydia Gayle Brown : Director Company Secretary Mr. Parveen Jain Chief Financial Officer Mr. Jitendra Grover Statutory Auditors T R Chadha & Co. LLP CONTENTS 1. Board’s Report .........................................................................................1-26 2. Auditor’s Report & Standalone Financial Statements as per Ind AS . .27-76 3. Auditor’s Report & Consolidated Financial Statements as per Ind AS ............................................77-126 Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Limited Annual Report 2019-20 Board’s Report Dear Members, with a portfolio of high-profile clients, extensive sector expertise and in-depth understanding of industrial business processes and The Board of Directors hereby submits the 14th Annual Report operational technologies. of Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Limited (referred to herein as the “Company”) along with the audited financial statements of the Capgemini offers its clients an unmatched and unique value Company for the financial year ended March 31, 2020. proposition to address their transformation and innovation needs and works alongside its clients, from initial concept stage through Financial Highlights industrialization, to invent the products and services of tomorrow and The highlights of the Company’s standalone financial results for the boost the value of clients’ organization. Capgemini has been working financial year ended March 31, 2020 alongwith the corresponding with major players in many sectors like Automotive, Aeronautics, figures for the previous financial year are as follows: Space, Defence & Naval, Communications, Semiconductor & Electronics, Software & Internet, etc. and utilizes its global network (in INR million) of world-class experts, a cost-cutting industrial supply chain, and its Particulars Year ended Year ended customized tools to deliver clients business goals in an ever more March 31, 2020 March 31, 2019 challenging environment.
    [Show full text]
  • US Communications Service Provider Quarterly
    Telecom Technology and Services Group U.S. Communications Service Provider Quarterly Summer 2021 Vol. 11, No. 3 IN THIS ISSUE 2 Introduction and Sub Sector Definitions 3 U.S. Summary Comments: Public Markets 4 Public Market Summary Charts 1-6 5 U.S. Communications Service Provider Stocks: M&A Summary Charts 1-2 6 Announced Transactions 7 Announced Transactions with Revenue Multiples 8 Sub Sector Analysis: Large Cap Telecom Charts 1-6 9 Sub Sector Analysis: Alternative Telecom Charts 1-6 10 Sub Sector Analysis: Hosted and Managed Services Charts 1-6 11 Sub Sector Analysis: ILEC and Diversified ILEC Charts 1-6 Investment Banking and Advisory Services 12 Sub Sector Analysis: Cable and Video Charts 1-6 FOCUS Investment Banking LLC is a leading investment bank 13 FOCUS Telecom Technology and with specialized telecom technology and services expertise, Services Team concentrating on providing highly tailored services to emerging middle market and larger organizations in this sector: • Mergers & Acquisition Advisory • Corporate Development Consulting • Strategic Partnering & Alliances • Capital Financing, Debt & Equity • Corporate Valuations U.S. Communications Service Provider Quarterly By Richard Pierce, FOCUS Managing Director and Telecom Technology and Services Team Leader FOCUS believes that the need for communications ser- • Has a breadth of knowledge that covers most segments vices has never been greater. Large enterprises, small and of the telecom industry, medium sized businesses and individuals have all come • Has seasoned bankers with decades of telecom industry to rely upon ubiquitous access to voice, video and data experience, services to run their day-to-day activities. Furthermore, the importance of Communications Service Providers • Has a proven transaction methodology for delivering (CSPs) appears poised to increase further as they begin results, to enable a variety of new services ranging from hosted • Is equally comfortable with buy side and sell side M&A, PBX and videoconferencing platforms to in-home secu- rity and energy management solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • USCIS - H-1B Approved Petitioners Fis…
    5/4/2010 USCIS - H-1B Approved Petitioners Fis… H-1B Approved Petitioners Fiscal Year 2009 The file below is a list of petitioners who received an approval in fiscal year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009) of Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, requesting initial H- 1B status for the beneficiary, regardless of when the petition was filed with USCIS. Please note that approximately 3,000 initial H- 1B petitions are not accounted for on this list due to missing petitioner tax ID numbers. Related Files H-1B Approved Petitioners FY 2009 (1KB CSV) Last updated:01/22/2010 AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 10042060. (Posted 04/20/10) uscis.gov/…/menuitem.5af9bb95919f3… 1/1 5/4/2010 http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resource… NUMBER OF H-1B PETITIONS APPROVED BY USCIS IN FY 2009 FOR INITIAL BENEFICIARIES, EMPLOYER,INITIAL BENEFICIARIES WIPRO LIMITED,"1,964" MICROSOFT CORP,"1,318" INTEL CORP,723 IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,695 PATNI AMERICAS INC,609 LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LIMITED,602 ERNST & YOUNG LLP,481 INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,440 UST GLOBAL INC,344 DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP,328 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,320 CISCO SYSTEMS INC,308 ACCENTURE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,287 KPMG LLP,287 ORACLE USA INC,272 POLARIS SOFTWARE LAB INDIA LTD,254 RITE AID CORPORATION,240 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO,236 DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP,235 COGNIZANT TECH SOLUTIONS US CORP,233 MPHASIS CORPORATION,229 SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LIMITED,219 BLOOMBERG,217 MOTOROLA INC,213 GOOGLE INC,211 BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCH SYSTEM,187 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND,185 UNIV OF MICHIGAN,183 YAHOO INC,183
    [Show full text]
  • PHOENIX CENTER POLICY BULLETIN NO. 17 Page 1 of 18
    PHOENIX CENTER POLICY BULLETIN NO. 17 Page 1 of 18 PHOENIX CENTER POLICY BULLETIN NO. 17 George S. Ford, Ph.D. Thomas M. Koutsky, J.D. Lawrence J. Spiwak, J.D. April 2007 WIRELESS NET NEUTRALITY: FROM Carterfone TO CABLE BOXES Abstract: Over the past few months there have been calls to impose “wireless net neutrality” rules on the burgeoning United States wireless industry. These critics assert that certain practices by the wireless industry—such as handset “locking” practices, data bandwidth limitations, and control over features included on handsets—unduly hamper the ability of consumers to access and use advanced data communications services and, therefore, require severe regulatory intervention to protect consumers. To correct this perceived market defect, wireless network neutrality advocates essentially seek to turn highly sophisticated wireless telecommunications networks into commodity-based networks. In support of this proposal, wireless network neutrality advocates point to the Federal Communications Commission’s 1968 Carterfone decision and the more recent Cable Navigation Devices rules as examples in which the Commission has taken what they allege to be a similar regulatory approach for both the landline telephone and video programming distribution market. In this BULLETIN we show that neither the mandates of, nor conditions relevant to, Carterfone and the Cable Navigation Devices decisions appear to support the regulatory intervention sought by the wireless network neutrality advocates. Indeed, the Carterfone and Cable Navigation Devices decisions appear to decidedly call for a rejection of the recent proposals for wireless network neutrality. We also discuss the substantial risks that Carterfone-type regulation would commoditize wireless network services in a way that could substantially harm the prospects for entry and competition in the industry.
    [Show full text]
  • FROM CARTERFONE to the Iphone: CONSUMER CHOICE in the WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MARKETPLACE
    FROM CARTERFONE TO THE iPHONE: CONSUMER CHOICE IN THE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MARKETPLACE Michael T. Hoekert Obituary Ma Bell Dies at 107. Ma Bell died at the stroke of midnight, Saturday, De- cember 31, 1983. She succumbed to the forces of technological change and the pub- lic's desire for competition. She was 107 years old. Funeral arrangements were made by the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust department team led by William Baxter. Officiating was Judge Harold H. Greene.' I. INTRODUCTION So began a tribute written by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1944 upon the divesture, in late 1983, of the largest company the world had ever seen, the American Telegraph and Telephone Company ("AT&T").2 Tens of thousands of proud men and women could not help but mourn the loss of the $155 billion telephone empire that they had a very real hand in constructing. Through the twentieth century, AT&T brought universal local and long distance telephone service to the United States, a monumental task by any measure. As a government-sanctioned and vertically integrated monopoly with universal service as its mandate, AT&T harnessed immense economies of scale and scope in tackling this challenge.4 By the 1950s, AT&T t J.D. Candidate, May 2009, The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. The author would like to recognize Professor Robert Frieden's passion for the issues dis- cussed here, and thank him for his eagerness to share his knowledge and criticism through- out the development of this Comment. I The Day the Bell System Died, http://www.porticus.org/bell/bellsystemdied.html (last visited Sept.
    [Show full text]