AT&T Corporation, et al. v. Iowa Utilities Board et al. (525 U.S. 366)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 25, 1999 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 525 U.S. 366 · 119 S. Ct. 721
- Decided
- January 25, 1999
- Term
- October Term 1998
- Vote
- 7–1
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. In these cases we address whether the Federal Communications Commission has authority to implement certain pricing and nonpricing provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as well as whether the Commission’s rules governing unbundled access and "pick and choose” negotiation are consistent with the statute. I Until the 1990’s, local phone service was thought to be a natural monopoly. States typically granted an exclusive franchise in each local service area to a local exchange carrier (LEC), which owned, among other things, the local loops (wires connecting telephones to switches), the switches (equipment directing calls to their destinations), and the transport trunks (wires carrying calls between switches) that constitute a local exchange network. Technological advances, however, have made competition among multiple providers of local service seem possible, and Congress recently ended the longstanding regime of state-sanctioned monopolies. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act or Act), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, fundamentally restructures local telephone markets. States may no longer enforce laws that impede competition, and incumbent LECs are subject to a host of duties intended to facilitate market entry. Foremost among these duties is the LEC’s obligation under 47 U. S. C. § 251(e) (1994 ed., Supp. II)…
Excerpt of a 55,994-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.