Telecommunications Act

AFTER the announcement of a $62 billion merger of regional telephone companies SBC Communications Inc. and Ameritech Corp., some consumer groups and lawmakers said it was the latest indication that telecommunications reform legislation in 1996 was not fulfilling its goals of more competition and lower rates.Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, an Arizona Republican, suggested that it might be time to overhaul the law. How likely is it that lawmakers in Washington will revisit telecommunications legislation?

When legislators created the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they viewed the world of local vs. long-distance communications as all there was: a pair of different animals that needed to be taught how to play well together. They didn't see that technology would come along - as it so often does - to make all their efforts moot. Cable and wireless companies sneaked into the market while traditional land-line phone companies, cousins by comparison, were busy arguing over sharing their equipment, as the act required.

A federal law designed to encourage cable television competition is strengthening the position of two telecommunications companies that want to do business in Baltimore County. Even as the Baltimore County Council gathers public opinion tonight on the merits of firms seeking to challenge Comcast, the current cable provider, it finds itself with limited power to veto either applicant. That's because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides a way to bypass local governments that traditionally have held sway on cable matters.

WASHINGTON - Consumer advocates and corporate lobbyists are pushing from opposite sides for Congress to overhaul the law that reshaped the communications industry, saying the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has failed to promote true competition among telephone and cable companies. And for the first time in years, Congress appears to be listening. Consumer groups complain that although phone bills have fallen for most customers, prices for cable programming and high-speed Internet access, or broadband, have risen steadily since 1996.

Despite strong objections from more than 25 residents, the Carroll County Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously approved yesterday Sprint PCS' plans for a 250-foot telecommunications tower north of Hampstead.The galvanized steel tower with a shining beacon, to be erected at 3333 Falls Road, is one of eight towers Sprint wants to build in the county's northern area as it expands its digital phone service west of Baltimore.Neighbors of the proposed site said they are afraid the tower will cause their property values to plummet, endanger their health and compromise the pristine surroundings that drew them to the county.

WASHINGTON - Consumer advocates and corporate lobbyists are pushing from opposite sides for Congress to overhaul the law that reshaped the communications industry, saying the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has failed to promote true competition among telephone and cable companies. And for the first time in years, Congress appears to be listening. Consumer groups complain that although phone bills have fallen for most customers, prices for cable programming and high-speed Internet access, or broadband, have risen steadily since 1996.

AT&T announced yesterday that it is asking the Maryland Public Service Commission to open up short-distance toll calls to freer competition.The action continues a battle between AT&T and Bell Atlantic Corp. as each seeks to claim a piece of the other's market.In a petition filed last week with the PSC, AT&T Communications of Maryland Inc. said Maryland consumers "are being denied lower prices and new service selections" by the lack of short distance toll competition.At issue is how calls are handled within four regions of the state, called local access and transport areas, or LATAs.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 promised to bring telephone and cable-television consumers lower rates, expanded choices and new technology.The key to it all would be competition. The legislation cleared the way for local-service phone companies, long-distance firms and cable-television providers to invade each other's markets and bid to offer one-stop communications shopping. The real winner would be the American consumer.But, as the Telecommunications Act nears its second anniversary, many industry experts say those expectations are not being fulfilled.

The nation's chief telephone regulator yesterday blasted a recent court decision that could open the long-distance market to regional local-service phone companies.Federal Communications Commission Chairman William Kennard called the decision "unequivocally bad for the consumers of America."On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Joe Kendall, in Wichita Falls, Tex., ruled that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 unconstitutionally prevents the regional local-service companies, known as Baby Bells, from entering the $80 billion long-distance market.

When William Kennard, President Clinton's nominee for the chairman's post of the FCC, sits down at his Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday, the biggest implicit question may not be his fitness for the job but whom he will listen to in Washington once he gets it.It is close to a foregone conclusion within the capital's telecommunications fraternity that, absent a bombshell revelation, Kennard and the three other people who have been nominated to the Federal...

A federal law designed to encourage cable television competition is strengthening the position of two telecommunications companies that want to do business in Baltimore County. Even as the Baltimore County Council gathers public opinion tonight on the merits of firms seeking to challenge Comcast, the current cable provider, it finds itself with limited power to veto either applicant. That's because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides a way to bypass local governments that traditionally have held sway on cable matters.

Despite strong objections from more than 25 residents, the Carroll County Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously approved yesterday Sprint PCS' plans for a 250-foot telecommunications tower north of Hampstead.The galvanized steel tower with a shining beacon, to be erected at 3333 Falls Road, is one of eight towers Sprint wants to build in the county's northern area as it expands its digital phone service west of Baltimore.Neighbors of the proposed site said they are afraid the tower will cause their property values to plummet, endanger their health and compromise the pristine surroundings that drew them to the county.

AT&T announced yesterday that it is asking the Maryland Public Service Commission to open up short-distance toll calls to freer competition.The action continues a battle between AT&T and Bell Atlantic Corp. as each seeks to claim a piece of the other's market.In a petition filed last week with the PSC, AT&T Communications of Maryland Inc. said Maryland consumers "are being denied lower prices and new service selections" by the lack of short distance toll competition.At issue is how calls are handled within four regions of the state, called local access and transport areas, or LATAs.

AFTER the announcement of a $62 billion merger of regional telephone companies SBC Communications Inc. and Ameritech Corp., some consumer groups and lawmakers said it was the latest indication that telecommunications reform legislation in 1996 was not fulfilling its goals of more competition and lower rates.Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, an Arizona Republican, suggested that it might be time to overhaul the law. How likely is it that lawmakers in Washington will revisit telecommunications legislation?

It isn't easy to find agreement in the telecommunications industry these days.Long-distance phone companies argue with local phone companies over market access. Digital wireless phone companies bicker with each other over product standards. Every new technology, it seems, has ardent defenders and vehement critics.But the region's telecommunications companies agree on one point -- this year will be another big year for a booming industry."The industry will continue to expand, and we don't see any slowing of that," said Steve Chaddick, senior vice president for products and technology at Ciena Corp.

In a decision with major implications for phone service in Maryland, a Public Service Commission hearing examiner has declined to force Bell Atlantic Corp. to provide customized bundles of phone-network parts to competitors seeking to enter the local-service market.Bell Atlantic owns most of the state's local-service phone network. Long-distance companies such as AT&T Corp. that want to expand into the local-service market have little choice other than to buy access to elements of Bell Atlantic's network, such as switching facilities, customer lists and calling features.

When legislators created the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they viewed the world of local vs. long-distance communications as all there was: a pair of different animals that needed to be taught how to play well together. They didn't see that technology would come along - as it so often does - to make all their efforts moot. Cable and wireless companies sneaked into the market while traditional land-line phone companies, cousins by comparison, were busy arguing over sharing their equipment, as the act required.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court refused yesterday to clear the way for the government to hold down prices that local telephone companies may charge competitors for linking up with their systems.As a result, local phone companies, including the Baby Bells, and their future competition will have to negotiate individual pricing deals under supervision of the 50 state public utility commissions.The Federal Communications Commission, rebuffed in its plea for a nationwide pricing structure, contends that individually bargained deals will slow the arrival of new competition in local phone markets.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 promised to bring telephone and cable-television consumers lower rates, expanded choices and new technology.The key to it all would be competition. The legislation cleared the way for local-service phone companies, long-distance firms and cable-television providers to invade each other's markets and bid to offer one-stop communications shopping. The real winner would be the American consumer.But, as the Telecommunications Act nears its second anniversary, many industry experts say those expectations are not being fulfilled.

The nation's chief telephone regulator yesterday blasted a recent court decision that could open the long-distance market to regional local-service phone companies.Federal Communications Commission Chairman William Kennard called the decision "unequivocally bad for the consumers of America."On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Joe Kendall, in Wichita Falls, Tex., ruled that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 unconstitutionally prevents the regional local-service companies, known as Baby Bells, from entering the $80 billion long-distance market.