Hello, Bakern10! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC) 20:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Bakern10, and welcome to Wikipedia! I've been given to understand that you and your group require a mentor for the making of this article. If any of you have any questions, just let me know! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bakern10, Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
USTA v. FCC
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] .
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].
References
^United States Telecom Association, et al. v. FCC & USA (D.C. Cir. 2004)
Keep up the excellent work. I should send you the citation for the source that I gave you. Will do that tomorrow as the book is at school. Jaobar (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is an article that has been nominated for deletion regarding the Michigan State football team. I noticed you were an alumni, so I thought I would let you know in case you have any interest in participating with the discussion. If so, please just click on the Title as I have linked it straight to the page's deletion review. If you wish to see just the article itself, it is titled Michigan State Miracle. Thanks! Stubbleboy16:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
