IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/rneart/v1y2002i2n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Court's Divide

Author

Listed:
  • Lehman Dale E.

    (Alaska Pacific University)

Abstract

The Supreme Court decision in Verizon et al v. FCC et al has finally settled the legality of the FCC's methodology for setting prices for wholesale services that are "based on cost", as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Court's decision reveals unanimous agreement that forward-looking costs may be used as the measure of cost. It also reveals agreement that the FCC's leeway in establishing a methodology for measuring these costs is limited by the need for the methodology to bear a "rational connection" to the goals of the Act. The majority and Justice Breyer differ in whether this limitation was binding in this case. This paper examines the theoretical and empirical evidence that could have shed light on the Court's disagreement - evidence that was not part of the case presented to the Court. While the evidence casts considerable doubt on the wisdom of the public policy approach adopted by the FCC, it does not lead to the conclusion that the Court should have ruled differently.

Suggested Citation

  • Lehman Dale E., 2002. "The Court's Divide," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2), pages 1-13, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rneart:v:1:y:2002:i:2:n:3
    DOI: 10.2202/1446-9022.1008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1446-9022.1008
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1446-9022.1008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rneart:v:1:y:2002:i:2:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.