Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Antitrust and Trade Regulation

Maurer School of Law: Indiana University

Federal Communications Law Journal

Journal

1998

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Law

A Birthday Party: The Terrible Or Terrific Two’S? 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act, Kathleen Wallman Dec 1998

A Birthday Party: The Terrible Or Terrific Two’S? 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act, Kathleen Wallman

Federal Communications Law Journal

As we celebrate the second anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we can see that the predictions of instant cross-industry competition that were made at its birth were rather euphoric. Despite the unexpected twists and turns of the first two years, there have been a number of significant market developments suggesting that the lowering of barriers that the Act effected have put things on the right course. However, the success of the Act will be rather fragile during the next few years, as it is subject to reversal by market as well as judicial forces. We should therefore continue …

Go to article

From International Competitive Carrier To The Wto: A Survey Of The Fcc’S International Telecommunications Policy Initiatives 1985-1998, Lawrence J. Spiwak Dec 1998

From International Competitive Carrier To The Wto: A Survey Of The Fcc’S International Telecommunications Policy Initiatives 1985-1998, Lawrence J. Spiwak

Federal Communications Law Journal

With the creation and implementation of the February 1996 World Trade Organization Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services, the international telecommunications community has (at least on paper) promised ostensibly to move away from markets characterized by monopolies and toward a world of competition and deregulation. The big question, however, is whether these efforts will actually lead to better economic performance in the market for international telecommunications products and services. This Article examines one particular, yet extremely significant, portion of this inquiry—how much have U.S. international telecommunications policies specifically helped or hindered this process. This Article, after surveying Federal Communications Commission (FCC …

Go to article

The "Public Interest" Standard: The Search For The Holy Grail, Erwin G. Krasnow, Jack N. Goodman May 1998

The "Public Interest" Standard: The Search For The Holy Grail, Erwin G. Krasnow, Jack N. Goodman

Federal Communications Law Journal

During the last eighty years, there is likely no single area of communications policy that has generated as much scholarly discourse, judicial analysis, and political debate as has the simple directive to regulate in the "public interest." While remaining at the heart of current communications regulatory policy debate, the public interest standard has been subject to evolving, and often elusive definitions that reflect the change in American culture from generation to generation. As broadcasters begin the transition to a more flexible digital technology, there have been calls for a reexamination of the public interest standard. But the genius of the …

Go to article

Section 332 Of The Communications Act Of 1934: A Federal Regulatory Framework That Is "Hog Tight, Horse High, And Bull Strong", Leonard J. Kennedy, Heather A. Purcell May 1998

Section 332 Of The Communications Act Of 1934: A Federal Regulatory Framework That Is "Hog Tight, Horse High, And Bull Strong", Leonard J. Kennedy, Heather A. Purcell

Federal Communications Law Journal

In 1993, recognizing that state and local regulatory practices were harmful to the development of widespread low-cost commercial and personal mobile radio services, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, legislation that freed wireless carriers from a dual federal-state regulatory structure. As a result, sections 332 and 2(b) of the Communications Act were revised to endow the FCC with exclusive jurisdiction over wireless regulation. Unfortunately, some courts and regulators have concluded that Congress did not intend to grant the FCC exclusive authority over wireless communications. Such rulings could be attributed to a misguided focus on traditional preemption analysis rather …

Go to article

First Amendment Trump?: The Uncertain Constitutionalization Of Structural Regulation Separating Telephone And Video, Susan Dente Ross Mar 1998

First Amendment Trump?: The Uncertain Constitutionalization Of Structural Regulation Separating Telephone And Video, Susan Dente Ross

Federal Communications Law Journal

The Cable Act of 1984 contained a "cross-ownership" ban, which prohibited telephone companies from entering the local cable video market. Although the ban was challenged by telephone carriers on numerous grounds, the First Amendment was not the basis of any challenge until the mid-1990s when telephone companies sought to characterize themselves not just as carriers but as content suppliers, or "speakers," who were deprived of their right to speak as a result of common carrier regulations that were intended merely to control the economic structure of the communications industry. Using the First Amendment as a new-found constitutional weapon to challenge …

Go to article

Creating Better Incentives Through Regulation: Section 271 Of The Communications Act Of 1934 And The Promotion Of Local Exchange Competition, Tim Sloan Mar 1998

Creating Better Incentives Through Regulation: Section 271 Of The Communications Act Of 1934 And The Promotion Of Local Exchange Competition, Tim Sloan

Federal Communications Law Journal

The overriding goal of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is to promote competition in all telecommunications markets. Section 271 of the Act addresses competition in the local telecommunications market. This section provides that, with appropriate competition in the local exchange market, Bell Operating Companies shall be allowed to offer in-region, interLATA services. Although Bell Operating Companies have applied to offer such services, the FCC has yet to grant a section 271 application. Through these denials, the Commission has begun to construe the frequently ambiguous text included in Track A and Track B of section 271. A further understanding of the …

Go to article

Section 253 Of The Telecommunications Act Of 1996: A Permanent Physical Appropriation Of Private Property That Must Be Justly Compensated, Jennifer L. Worstell Mar 1998

Section 253 Of The Telecommunications Act Of 1996: A Permanent Physical Appropriation Of Private Property That Must Be Justly Compensated, Jennifer L. Worstell

Federal Communications Law Journal

Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was promulgated in an effort to remove unnecessary regulation by local governments and open up competition among local phone companies, cable providers, and other telecommunications concerns. However, this provision effectively prohibits local governments from managing their rights-of-way. Furthermore, it violates modern Fifth Amendment takings jurisprudence, Section 253 and the first three FCC and court decisions examining it not only have jeopardized effective municipal management and resource allocation discretion, but also have usurped local governments' property rights without just compensation in explicit violation of the United States Constitution.

Go to article