Court rejects Verizon challenge to roaming rule
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court has rejected a Verizon challenge to a Federal Communications Commission rule aimed at increasing competition in wireless broadband service.
The three-judge panel ruled Tuesday that the FCC had the legal authority to issue the "data roaming rule." The rule requires big wireless carriers to open their data networks to smaller regional operators in places where they don't have their own systems. The large carriers must offer network access at reasonable prices.
Verizon has called the rule "unwarranted government intervention," and challenged it on several grounds - including that the FCC lacked the statutory authority to issue it.
But appeals court judges Thomas Griffith, David S. Tatel and Merrick B. Garland disagreed. Griffith was appointed by President George W. Bush; the other two by President Bill Clinton.
The three-judge panel ruled Tuesday that the FCC had the legal authority to issue the "data roaming rule." The rule requires big wireless carriers to open their data networks to smaller regional operators in places where they don't have their own systems. The large carriers must offer network access at reasonable prices.
Verizon has called the rule "unwarranted government intervention," and challenged it on several grounds - including that the FCC lacked the statutory authority to issue it.
But appeals court judges Thomas Griffith, David S. Tatel and Merrick B. Garland disagreed. Griffith was appointed by President George W. Bush; the other two by President Bill Clinton.
The government should just take it all over and make all the carriers pay for it like the carriers make their customers pay for it...give them a minutes plan and sock it to them if they go over. And if they don't use all their minutes, too bad. They whole thing is a scam.
Not that I favor big business, but that's bogus.
Â
Forcing one company to allow a direct competitor to sue their PRIVATE infrastructure breaks the whole rule of being private.
Â
Look I like competition. And the free market, heck even the socialist market, needs it. It creates demand, it allows for success to be rewarded.
Â
But this undermines not just competition but the drive to even want to be in the game. Why bother to ever make your product better if you can just force the competitor to sell you theirs "at a reasonable rate" then resell that product.
Â
No I have worked retail and a lot of makers and distributors have tried to undermine little and big businesses with the âdonât sell to themâ rule that has been repeatedly deemed anti-competitive. But this is more like forcing a distributor or retail competitor to allow competition to sell RIGHT IN THIR STORE.
Â
The definition of unfair.
Â
 @Repoman I see no reason why "reasonable fee" can't be "what we charge everyone else"; the small operators will simply have to resell it at a higher price if they wish to make any profit off of it.
Actually it has a precedent in the court ordered breakup of AT &T years ago. There is compensation to Verizon here as they are able to charge a fee. Ma Bell built a monopoly all over the country. In some parts of this country (rural mostly) there is very limited availability of cell carriers - this ruling attempts to add competition - just like the break up of ma bell. Unless you ant to see more of the ""too big to fail" scenarios play out - tis is a good ruling.