United States Telecom Association v. FCC (2004): Difference between revisions
Started an Infobox for the Case |
m Added more to info box |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| imagealt = |
| imagealt = |
||
| caption = |
| caption = |
||
| full name = United States Telecom Assocation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America |
|||
| full name = |
|||
| date decided = |
| date decided = March 2, 2004 |
||
| citations = |
| citations = 359 F.3d 554, 561-62 |
||
| transcripts = |
| transcripts = |
||
| judges = |
| judges = Harry T. Edwards, A. Raymond Randolph, ''Senior Circuit Judge'' Stephen F. Williams |
||
| prior actions = |
| prior actions = |
||
| subsequent actions = |
| subsequent actions = |
||
| related actions = |
| related actions = |
||
| opinions = |
| opinions = |
||
| keywords = |
| keywords = [[USTA]] [[FCC]] [[Regional Bells]] [[ILEC]] [[CLEC]] |
||
| italic title = |
| italic title = |
||
}} |
}} |
||
Revision as of 18:08, 25 March 2011
.svg){kind=small} | This United States government–related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
| USTA v. FCC | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
| Full case name | United States Telecom Assocation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America |
| Decided | March 2, 2004 |
| Citation | 359 F.3d 554, 561-62 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Harry T. Edwards, A. Raymond Randolph, Senior Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams |
| Keywords | |
| USTA FCC Regional Bells ILEC CLEC | |
In USTA v. FCC (2004) [1] the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals overturned local phone and incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) competition rules set forth by the FCC in August of 2003 under the name, Triennial Review Order [2] . The court's decision went against the FCC's rules giving state regulatory commissions the power to require ILECs to share certain parts of their networks, specifically switches and unbundled network portions, with new competitors at regulated rates[3]. The rules originally adopted by the FCC in the Triennial Review Order[4] were meant to foster competition among the competing companies and encourage lower rates for consumers[5] .
This was the third case involving section 251[2] of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act gave power to the FCC to decide what network elements an ILEC must share with new competitors in the market.
At the heart of the case was whether or not the FCC was acting in accordance with Congress' decision to grant the commission the power to decide which network elements to share, given that failure to provide access to network elements would impair the ability of a telecommunications carrier seeking access to provide the services that it seeks to offer [6].
The court found that the FCC's decision to delegate responsibility to state regulatory commissions in regards to determining shared network elements went against previous rulings[7]. The court also reversed and remanded a decision by the FCC, which stated that wireless carriers are impaired without the reduce cost and access to ILEC networks [8].
The case, which was never appealed by the Department of Justice, resulted in the FCC phasing out its unbundled network platform element that was included in the Triennial Review Order[2] at the end of 2005[9] . The ruling according to Johannes Bauer led to major changes in the future of the telecommunications industry leading to dynamic regulation[10].
History
Triennial Review Order
Ruling
Implications
References
- ^ United States Telecom Association, et al. v. FCC & USA (D.C. Cir. 2004)
- ^ a b c "§ 251 Network Unbundling". Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved 2 February 2011.
- ^ Tardiff, Timothy (2007). "Changes in industry structure and technological convergence: implications for competition policy and regulation in telecommunications". International Economics and Economic Policy. 4 (2): 110. Retrieved 9 February 2011.
- ^ "§ 251 Network Unbundling". Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved 2 February 2011.
- ^ Goldstein, F.R. "USTA v. FCC: A decision Ripe for the Supremes". ISP Planet. Retrieved 8 February 2011.
- ^ United States Telecom Association, et al. v. FCC & USA (D.C. Cir. 2004) p.6
- ^ United States Telecom Association, et al. v. FCC & USA (D.C. Cir. 2004) p.61
- ^ United States Telecom Association, et al. v. FCC & USA (D.C. Cir. 2004) p.62
- ^ Tardiff, Timothy (2007). "Changes in industry structure and technological convergence: implications for competition policy and regulation in telecommunications". International Economics and Economic Policy. 4 (2): 109–134. Retrieved 9 February 2011.
- ^ Bauer, J (2008). [www.springerlink.com/index/D2345Q0801XL59R7.pdf "From Static to Dynamic Regulation: Recent Developments in US Telecommunications Policy"] (PDF). Intereconomics. 43 (1): 38–50. Retrieved 9 February 2011.
{{cite journal}}: Check|url=value (help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)