FindLaw | Find a Lawyer. Find Answers.

Library Search

• FCC Issues New Rules on Obligations of Incumbent Local Telephone Companies to Lease Portions of Their Networks to Competitors ( February 2005 )
  

  On February 4, 2005, the FCC released its Order on Remand ("Order") in its review of the network equipment and facilities ("unbundled network elements" or "UNEs") that incumbent local telephone companies ("ILECs") must provide at "cost-based" rates to other carriers ("CLECs") for the provision of competing telephone services. The Order responds to the remand by the D.C. Circuit ("USTA II") of certain rulings by the FCC in a prior order known as the "Triennial Review Order" ("TRO"). The new rules adopted in the Order take effect on March 11, 2005.

• FCC Preempts State Commission Requirements That ILECs Provide DSL Service to End User Customers Subscribing to CLEC Voice Service; Issues Notice of Inquiry on Bundling of "Legacy" and "New" Services ( March 2005 )
  

  On March 25, 2005, the FCC released an order ("Order") over two dissents (by Commissioners Adelstein and Copps) granting a petition for declaratory ruling filed by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. ("BellSouth"). The Order preempts separate orders of four state commissions in BellSouth's local service territory that had required BellSouth to provide DSL service to customers receiving voice services from Competitive Local Exchange Carriers ("CLECs") using unbundled loops leased by the CLECs from BellSouth.

• FCC Decisions on VoIP Classification Will Affect the Future of the Service ( June 2005 )
  

  Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") is arguably one of the most important recent developments in telecommunications, yet is virtually ignored by current federal and state regulations applicable to traditional telephone service. However, the growing popularity of VoIP in both the private and business sectors (some analysts claim that VoIP will replace traditional telephone service for the majority of users by the end of this decade) makes it likely that VoIP will be subjected to at least some regulatory requirements in the future.

• Death of the EBR Exemption May Be "Greatly Exaggerated" ( July 2004 )
  

  The Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004 would amend the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to restore an exemption allowing businesses to send unsolicited facsimile ads to persons with whom they have an established business relationship. The FCC wiped out this exemption in rule-making proceedings effective January 1, 2005. Plaintiff class action firms are filing TCPA unsolicited fax class action cases across the country. This article discusses the history and current state of the Act.

• Federal Communications Commission Reported Cases, 1928-2002 ( December 2003 )
  

  Alphabetical citation list of cases involving the Federal Communications Commission from 1928-2002.

• FCC Prohibits Fax Advertising WIithout Signed Written Consent From Recipient ( December 2003 )
  

  On August 25, 2003, new FCC regulations further restricting the use of facsimile advertising will go into effect. Compliance with the requirement that affirmative, signed permission be obtained in order to send advertisements relating to the commercial availability or quality of goods or services by fax has been extended to January 1, 2005.

• Number Portability Developing Into a Telemarketing Quagmire ( November 2003 )
  

  On November 24, 2003 the Federal Communication Commission's number portability rule went into effect in the largest 100 metropolitan statistical areas. The remaining areas will have until May 24, 2004 to comply. In addition to allowing consumers the ability to switch their wireless carrier without losing their current wireless number, local number portability also requires landline carriers to allow consumers to transfer their numbers to wireless carriers. The end result is that a telephone number that was previously a landline number, may now in fact belong to a wireless number.

• Media Risk for Nonmedia Businesses ( October 2003 )
  

  Many, if not all, businesses now engage in many forms of publishing and broadcasting without even realizing it. Recent technological advances in communications have created a dramatic increase in the publishing and broadcasting capabilities available to even the smallest modern business. The purpose of this article is to review ways that companies engage in the publication of potentially defamatory, infringing, or invasive material.