No clear consensus has emerged. Should regulators hold to a hard line?
Regulators have wrestled for decades with transactions between vertically integrated monopoly utilities and their...
squeeze on new market entrants. %n21%n
Similarly, Ohio has chosen to follow the FCC in adopting the TELRIC method for pricing unbundled LEC service elements for resale to new local competitors. %n22%n
And in Massachusetts, state regulators have adopted a "dominant/non-dominant" regulatory structure to guide development of competition in the local exchange market. %n23%n
1Re Interconnection Involving Loc. Exch. Cos. and Alternative Loc. Exch. Cos., Dkt. No. 950985-TP, Order No. PSC-96-1239-FOF-TP, Oct. 7, 1996 (Fla.P.S.C.).
2Re BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Dkt. No. 960719-TP, Order No. PSC-96-1215-FOF-TP, Sept. 24, 1996 (Fla.P.S.C.).
3Re BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Dkt. No. 960864-TP, Order No. PSC-96-1315-FOF-TP, Oct. 29, 1996 (Fla.P.S.C.).
4Re BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Dkt. No. 960862-TP, Order No. PSC-96-1313-FOF-TP, Oct. 29, 1996 (Fla.P.S.C.).
5Re Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Dkt. No. 96-98, Aug. 8, 1996 (F.C.C.).
6Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, No. 96-3321, Oct. 15, 1996, 172 PUR4th 645 (8th Cir.).
7Re AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc., Case No. 96-752-TP-ARB, Dec. 5, 1996 (Ohio P.U.C.). But see note 22, infra.
8Re Establishment of Loc. Exch. Competition, Case No. 95-845-TP-COI, Nov. 7, 1996, 173 PUR4th 80 (Ohio P.U.C.).
9Re AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc., Dkt. Nos. P-442,421/M-96-855 et al., Dec. 2, 1996 (Minn.P.U.C.).
10Re AT&T Communications of Hawaii, Inc., Dkt. No. 96-0329, Order No. 15148, Nov. 6, 1996 (Haw.P.U.C.).
11Re AT&T Communications of Va. et al., Case Nos. PUC960100, Nov. 8, 1996 (Va.S.C.C.).
12Re TCG Detroit, Case No. U-11138, Nov. 1, 1996 (Mi.P.S.C.). See also, Re Permanent Interconnection Arrang. Between Basic Loc. Exch. Serv. Providers, Case No. U-10860, June 5, 1996, 170 PUR4th 4 (Mi.P.S.C.), addressing LEC interconnection issues on a generic basis and setting rates for interim number portability and mutual compensation for local traffic termination.
13Re Interconnection Involving Loc. Exch. Cos. and Alternative Loc. Exch. Cos., Dkt. No. 950985-TP, Order No. PSC-96-1148-FOF-TP, Sept. 12, 1996 (Fla.P.S.C.).
14Re Arbitrations Pending Before the PSC, Telecommunications Arbitration Case 6, Order No. 5, Nov. 1996 (D.C.P.S.C.).
15Re Interconnection Agreement Between NYNEX and TCG, Dkt. No. 2448, Nov. 7, 1996 (R.I.P.U.C.).
16Re AT&T Communications of NY, Case No. 95-C-0657 et al., Opin. No. 96-30, Nov. 26, 1996 (N.Y.P.S.C.).
17Re AT&T Communications of Va., Case Nos. PUC960100, Nov. 8, 1996 (Va.S.C.C.).
18Re Local Competition, Universal Service, and the Nontraffic-sensitive Access Rate, Admin. Case No. 355, Sept. 26, 1996 (Ky.P.S.C.).
19Re Competition for Local Exch. Serv., Decision 96-03-020, R. 95-04-043, I. 95-04-044, March 13, 1996, 169 PUR4th 83 (Cal.P.U.C.).
20Re MCI Corp.Bell South Telecommunications Inc. Arbitration, No. 6865, Dec. 17, 1996 (Ga.P.S.C.).
21Re U S WEST Communications, Inc., Dkt. No. RPU-95-10, May 17, 1996, 169 PUR4th 295 (Iowa Utils.Bd.).
22Re Estab. of Loc. Exch. Competition., Case No. 95-845-TP-COI, Nov. 7, 1996 (Ohio P.U.C.).
23Re IntraLATA and Loc. Exch. Competition, D.P.U. 94-185, Aug. 29, 1996, 172 PUR4th 45 (Mass.D.P.U.).
Articles found on this page are available to Internet subscribers only. For more information about obtaining a username and password, please call our Customer Service Department at 1-800-368-5001.