Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly Updates(31.) In his opinion, Judge Greene noted:
United States v. AT&T, 552 F. Supp. 131, 172 n.172 (D.D.C.1982).
(32.) 47 U.S.C. [section] 251(a) (2000).
(33.) [section] 251(c)(1).
(34.) [section] 252.
(35.) The statute reads:
[section] 251(c)(3).
(36.) For a fuller account, see Richard A. Epstein, Takings, Commons, and Associations: Why the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Misfired, 22 YALE J. ON REG. 315 (2005).
(37.) See KELLOGG, THORNE & HUBER, supra note 8, at 46-47, for a terse account that concluded thus: "The drafters of the decree simply blew it." But of course it is not so simple. There are endemic limitations to the consent decree process.
(38.) United States v. W. Elec. Co., 627 F. Supp. 1090 (D.D.C. 1986).
(39.) United States v. W. Elec. Co., 797 F.2d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
(40.) KELLOGG, THORNE & HUBER, supra note 8, at 677-686 (offering a detailed and incisive account of these events).
(41.) United States v. AT&T, 552 F. Supp. 131, 229 (1982) (Decree [section] IV(J)).
(42.) For an exhaustive account, see KELLOGG, THORNE & HUBER, supra note 8, at 315-27.
(43.) Id.
(44.) Robert W. Crandall, The Brookings Inst., Presentation at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Center for Technology, Innovation, & Competition Symposium: The Enduring Lessons of the Breakup of AT&T: A Twenty-Five Year Retrospective (Apr. 18-19, 2008) (powerpoint slides on file with The Federal Communications Law Journal).
Richard A. Epstein, James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago; Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution; Visiting Professor, NYU Law School. My thanks to Paul Laskow, NYU Law School, Class of 2009.
FEED