Progress On Point A Scorecard For Evaluating Whether State Telecommunications Policies Are Deregulatory And Pro Competitive

Even before the passage of the Communications Act of 19341 it was clear that the states and the federal government share responsibility for regulating the provision of communications services that are offered over the same physical facilities.2 The 1934 Act codified this jurisdictional separation. [...] Sections 1 and 2(a) of the Act grant the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") authority over interstate communications services,3 while Section 2(b) generally denies the FCC jurisdiction to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of intrastate offerings.4 In some important respects the Telecommunications Act of 1996 enhanced the regulatory authority of the FCC vis-a-vis the states. [...] Page 2 Progress on Point 9.1 the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to offer even intrastate service.5 And, of course, the 1996 Act gave the FCC primary authority to implement the local competition provisions of Sections 251 and 252 of the Act, including the issuance of rules governing the availability and pricing of unbundled pieces of the incumbent telephone companies' networks.6 In. [...] 3 Does the state require unbundling and sharing of the incumbent's facilities in excess of that required under the FCC's rules? In implementing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has issued rules which define the extent to which the incumbent's local exchange network must be unbundled and shared with the incumbent's competitors. [...] Rules that force firms to share every resource or element of a business would create not competition, but pervasive regulation, for the regulators, not the marketplace, would set the relevant terms."13 To the extent that a state requires any level of unbundling and sharing of network facilities in addition to the excessive amount already mandated by the FCC, its actions hinder the development of l.