Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Westell WSTL -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pat mudge who wrote (8706)	1/1/1998 12:10:00 AM
From: Chemsync	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21342

U.S. judge voids key provision of Telecom law MSNBC STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS WASHINGTON - A U.S. judge threw out as unconstitutional Wednesday provisions of a landmark federal law that restrict the regional Baby Bells from entering the $80 billion long-distance telephone market, SBC Communications Inc. said. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ "This is a huge win for consumers around the country," said an SBC spokesman. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿJUDGE JOE KENDALL of Dallas sided with San Antonio-based SBC Communications Inc.'s argument that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was unconstitutional because it singled out for "punishment" SBC and the other four Baby Bells. U S West Communications, Denver, sided with SBC in the case. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿThe New Year's Eve ruling is expected to send shock waves through the telecom industry and throw into more disarray the Federal Communications Commission's efforts to break open the $100 billion local phone market controlled by the Bells. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿThe Telecom Act barred the Bells from offering long-distance dialing until they opened their own local phone monopolies to long-distance carriers such as AT&T Corp., MCI Communications Corp. and others seeking to offer rival phone service. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿThe act also restricted the Bells from entering electronic publishing and the alarm monitoring business. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿJudge Kendall wrote that these provisions of the act "strip the (Bells) of their ability to enter new markets and tie their hands while their competitors such as GTE, AT&T and MCI take their punches." ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿThe act requires the Bells to meet a 14-point checklist demonstrating that local competition is present before they can offer long distance services. Judge Kendall called the checklist requirements "extremely onerous." ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿSBC said in a statement that the ruling clears the way for the company to offer long distance service within its region. But the judge's decision is sure to be appealed. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ"We intend to provide our customers with one-stop shopping for all their telecommunications needs by offering the simplest, most affordable long-distance plan available," Edward Whitacre, SBC's chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. Whitacre also said SBC has no plans to challenge portions of the act which require the Bells to open their local markets to competition. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿSo far, the FCC has rejected requests by SBC, Chicago-based Ameritech Corp. and Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp. to get into the long-distance business within their local calling regions. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿThe agency said the companies had not fully opened their local markets to rivals. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿBut the Bells complain the FCC has set unrealistically high standards for entry. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ"This is a huge win for consumers around the country," said an SBC spokesman. "It can be summed up as more competition and lower prices." ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿFCC Chairman William Kennard said in a statement: "While I have not yet studied today's decision, I am extremely concerned about what seems to be a court's invalidation of much that Congress, this commission and affected phone companies have done to bring consumers the benefit of competition." ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿJamie DePeau, a spokeswoman for No. 2 long-distance carrier MCI, said the company "will be reviewing this decision line by line and paragraph by paragraph to determine our next steps." ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿAt AT&T, vice president for law and public policy Mark Rosenblum called the decision "inexplicable and clearly erroneous." AT&T believes the ruling runs counter to Congress's intent, Rosenblum said, because "it woud apparently permit SBC to provide long distance service while its local monopoly is still intact." The company expressed confidence that the decision would be reversed on appeal. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿThe ruling is the latest blow for the federal government and the FCC in particular. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿA U.S. appeals court in St. Louis earlier this year threw out FCC rules governing the price long-distance companies and other must pay the Bells to hook up to their local networks to offer their own brand of service. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿThe FCC has appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿThe Baby Bells have been barred from offering long-distance service since the 1984 breakup of the old AT&T monopoly. That decision led to the creation of the regional Bell carriers. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿSBC retained constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor, to argue its case. The company contended that provisions aimed specifically at the Bell operating companies were discriminatory and violated the Bells' First Amendment right to free speech. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ"This is a very gratifying vindication of truly fundamental constitutional principles," Tribe said in a brief statement. ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ