|
''USTA'' ''v.'' ''FCC'' is the 2004 court case in which the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Federal Communication Commission's ''Triennial Review Order'' (TRO).The court's decision is based on the Telecommunications Act of 1996 section 251 which defines unbundled network elements (UNEs) for incumbent local exchange carriers and competitive local exchange carriers.〔United States Telecom Association, et al. v. FCC & USA (D.C. Cir. 2004)〕 Following the Court of Appeals' decision the FCC requested that the case be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. In June 2004 the solicitor general announced that a request for the Supreme Court to review the case would not be made. As a result of the solicitor general's decision the FCC would issue its Triennial Review Remand Order (TRRO) creating new rules and regulations for unbundled network elements.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/cpd/triennial_review )〕 ==History== The Telecommunications Act of 1996 required local incumbent exchange carriers(ILECs) to maintain the availability of physical network components, or Unbundled Network Element (UNEs), for use by other telecommunication carriers, or Competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs). The Act gave the FCC the responsibility to decide which network components would maintain availability, measuring with the standard of if “the failure to provide access to such network elements would impair the ability of the telecommunications carrier seeking access to provide the services that it seeks to offer.” In August of that year, the FCC’s Report and Order identified seven Unbundled Network Elements and resulted in two unbundling models. The UNEs included: * Local loops * Network interface devices * Local and tandem switching * Interoffice transmission facilities * Signaling networks and call related databases * Operations support systems * Operator services and directory assistance The UNE-P model consisted of local loop and switching and transportation, and allowed CLECs to enter the market without investing in supporting equipment and facilities. The further Unbundled Network Element -inclusive enhanced extended loop (EEL) model allowed CLECs to serve customers more easily by using their own local and tandem switching equipment. While CLECs and new market entrants said UNE-P helped open the local telecommunications market, ILECs claimed Unbundled Network Element practices served as a heavily discounted resale of their own network elements. Controversy that lead to the first USTA v. FCC case occurred in FCC's third Report and Order. The order required telecommunications carriers to allow law enforcement agencies access to carriers' individual phone calls and caller information, as outlined the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In court, The FCC stated that it had "exceeded its statutory authority," and agreed to remove certain aspects of the order. The removed portions included the information accessible to law enforcement of custom calling features and dialed telephone numbers during connected phone calls.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|