COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASS'N v. F.C.C.

No. 96-3604.

117 F.3d 1068 (1997)

COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, The Competition Policy Institute; MCI Telecommunications Corporation; General Communication, Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; AT & T Corp.; Maryland Public Service Commission; Arkansas Public Service Commission; Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone Company; Roseville Telephone Company; Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company; Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; The Ad Hoc Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies; Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition; Worldcom, Inc.; Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of Montana; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah; Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina; Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, doing business as National Silver Haired Congress, Inc.; U.S. Coalition on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging; Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice; Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control, Intervenors on Appeal, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America, Respondents, Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; US West, Inc.; US Telephone Association; Ameritech Corporation; Southern New England Telephone Company; GTE Service Corporation; New York Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph Company; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; Sprint Corp.; American Communications Services, Inc.; Association for Local Telecommunications Services; Consumer Federation of America; Jones Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport Communications Group, Inc.; Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems; U.S. One Communications Services; Frontier Corporation; City of Long Beach, California; City of Manassas, Virginia; Time Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal Communications Industry Association; Alltel Telephone Services Corporation; Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance; Excel Telecommunications, Inc.; Paging Network, Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal. Honorable John D. Dingell; Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher; Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Decided June 27, 1997.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robert J. Aamoth, Washington, DC, argued, for petitioner.

John Edward Ingle, Washington, DC, argued (Carl D. Lawson, on the brief), for respondent.

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.


BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel) petitions for review of a portion of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order that interprets the Telecommunications Act of 1996, see First Report and Order, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98 (Aug. 8, 1996) [hereinafter First Report and Order]. This is one of a number of cases consolidated and referred...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases