This just in from the Supreme Court

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: John Adams <jadams01 () sprynet com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:44:12 -0500
To: dave () farber net
Subject: This just in from the Supreme Court

http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2003/03/24/rtr916197.html

U.S. high court refuses phone line-sharing appeal
Reuters, 03.24.03, 11:29 AM ET

WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday
declined to review a lower court decision that called into question
regulations that required the four dominant local telephone companies
to share their networks with competitors at discounted prices.

WorldCom Inc. <WCOEQ.PK>, AT&T Corp. (nyse: T - news - people) and
Covad Communications <COVD.OB>, which brought the appeal, also asked
the high court to review a a ruling in the case that struck down a
requirement that dominant local carriers allow customers to choose
different providers for high-speed Internet and voice services.

The court turned down the requests without comment. Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor did not participate, as she typically does not take part in
such cases because she owns telecommunications stocks.

The decision not to hear the case follows a ruling by the Federal
Communications Commission last month to keep regulations that require
the dominant carriers to share their networks until state regulators
decide otherwise.

The FCC also rewrote a rule that said the dominant telephone companies
only had to share their copper lines with providers of high-speed
Internet services if those carriers offered voice services as well.

Legal challenges to that most recent FCC decision are expected.

The case resulted from rules the FCC adopted in 1999 that set a
national standard of network parts that had to be made available at a
reasonable cost to competing local telephone carriers that otherwise
would not be able to enter the market.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in May ordered
the FCC to reconsider its network sharing rules because they failed to
recognize local market conditions and associated wide ranging costs.

The appeals court also ruled that the big carriers did not have to
share a portion of the local line into a home so that the customer
could have a different provider for high-speed Internet service than
their telephone provider.

Separately, the Supreme Court declined to hear another local telephone
service dispute, an appeal by a New York City suburb seeking to charge
fees on upstart local phone companies that want to put their networks
in public rights of way to offer service.

After the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, legislation
intended to spur competition in the local telephone business, the city
of White Plains, New York, adopted an ordinance that charged new
entrants 5 percent of their gross revenue to rent public land.

A unit of AT&T, the biggest U.S. long-distance phone company,
challenged the ordinance, arguing it delayed access and favored the
dominant local provider, Verizon Communications (nyse: VZ - news -
people).

A federal appeals court ruled that the city ordinance effectively
barred the AT&T unit, TCG New York Inc., from offering service and did
not demand comparable compensation from Verizon.

The city asked the high court to intervene, arguing that the decision
conflicted with the will of Congress on managing public rights of way
and also was at odds with other decisions around the country.

The Supreme Court justices declined to hear the case without comment.

Copyright 2003, Reuters News Service


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/