The FCC and the Internet’s challenges to traditional regulatory policy

Angwin, J. (2002), “California claims DSL oversight, pleasing Internet‐service providers”, The Wall Street Journal Online, 1 April.

Blackman, C.R. (1998), “Convergence between telecommunications and other media”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 163‐70.

Boles, M. (2002), “Court says FCC is justified in calling ISP costs intrastate”, Telecommunications Reports, Telecommunications Reports International, 27 May, p. 22.

Bransten, L. (1999), “AOL unveils deal with Bell Atlantic that could move DSL into mainstream”, WSJ Interactive Edition, 13 January.

Brock, G.W. (1994), Telecommunications Policy for the Information Age, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

FCC (1996), “In the matter of implementation of the local competition provisions in the telecommunications act of 1996”, CC Docket No. 96‐98, First Report and Order, 1 August, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.

FCC (1998a), “In the matter of federal‐state board on universal service”, CC Docket No. 96‐45 (Report to Congress), Report to Congress, 10 April, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.

FCC (1998b), “In the matter of GTE telephone operating costs, GTOC Tariff No 1, GTOC Transmittal No 1148”, CC Docket No. 98‐79, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 October, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.

FCC (1999a), “In the matter of inquiry concerning the deployment of advanced telecommunications to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, and possible steps to accelerate such deployment pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996”, CC Docket 98‐146, Report, 2 February, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.

FCC (1999b), “In the matter of applications for consent to the transfer of control of licenses and Section 214 authorizations from Telecommunications, Inc, Transferor to AT&T Corp, Transferee”, CC Docket No. 98‐178, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 February, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.

FCC (1999c), “In the matter of implementation of local competition provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996”, CC Docket No. 96‐98, “Inter‐carrier compensation for ISP‐bound traffic”, CC Docket No. 99‐68, Declaratory Ruling in CC Docket No. 96‐98 and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No 99‐68, 26 February, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.

FCC (2000), “In the matter of access charge reform, price cap performance review for local exchange carriers, low‐volume long‐distance users, and federal‐state board on universal service”, Sixth Report and Order in CC Docket Nos 96‐262, Report and Order in CC Docket No 99‐249, Eleventh Report and Order in CC Docket No 96‐45, 31 May, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.

FCC (2001), “In the matter of implementation of the local competition provisions in the telecommunications act of 1996”, CC Docket No. 96‐98, “Intercarrier compensation for ISP‐bound traffic”, CC Docket No. 99‐68, Order on Remand and Report and Order, 18 April, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.

FCC (2002a), “In the matter of appropriate framework for broadband access to the Internet over wireline facilities”, CC Docket No. 02‐33, University Service Obligations of Broadband Providers, Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services; 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review – Review of Computer III and ONA Safeguards and Requirements, CC Dockets Nos. 95‐20 and 98‐10, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 February, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.

FCC (2002b), “In the matter of inquiry concerning high‐speed access to the Internet over cable and other facilities, Internet over cable declaratory ruling”, GN Docket No. 00‐185, “Appropriate regulatory treatment for broadband access to the Internet over cable facilities”, CS Docket No. 02‐52, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 March, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.

Leithauser, T. (2002), “AOL Time Warner hopes to convince other cable TV operators of merits of multiple ISPs”, TR Daily, Telecommunications Reports International, 8 January.

Levin, S.L. and Case, J.C. (1988), “Local measured service’’, Telecommunications Policy, March, pp. 27‐35.

Rovetto, E. (2002), “Appeals court faults FCC reasoning in order on ‘Recip Comp’, but lets rules remain in place”, Telecommunications Reports, Telecommunications Reports International, 6 May, pp. 1 and 27.

State Telephone Regulation Report (1998), “PSC says ISP calls are local”, Warren Publishing, 11 December, page 7.

TR Daily (2000a), “Strickling believes FCC can justify ‘recip comp’ ruling in face of remand”, Telecommunications Reports International, 24 March.

TR Daily (2000b), “US appeals court rejects Portland ‘Open Access’ rule”, Telecommunications Reports International, 30 June.