http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=46054April 20, at 2pm EST
The House Judiciary Committee and the antitrust laws have played a critical role in fostering competition in the telecom industry. After the historic breakup of Ma Bell based on antitrust grounds, Congress passed the Telecom Act of 1996 to help bring local competition to the telecom sector. The Act contained several market-opening provisions such as Section 271 designed to provide competitive opportunities for nonincumbent (non-Baby Bells) carriers that lacked access to the physical infrastructure built by decades of government-created monopoly control of the local exchange. Congress included a specific provision in the 1996 Act to preserve the application of the antitrust laws in the telecom marketplace because it recognized the integral role antitrust laws play in promoting competition, innovation, and consumer choice.
BACKGROUND: In recent years, a wave of consolidation has dramatically recast the competitive landscape in the telecom industry, undermining the pro-competitive goals of the 1996 Act. This consolidation has created what some perceive to be a telecom oligopoly comprised of a diminishing number of Baby Bells that increasingly resemble the Ma Bell monopoly from which they were created.
QUESTIONS: Is revision of the Telecom Act necessary to advance telecom competition? If consummated, would a new round of telecom mergers benefit consumers? What steps can Congress and the Judiciary Committee take to ensure the vitality of competition in the telecom industry?
WITNESSES: Carl Grivner, CEO of XO Communications; Brian Moir on behalf of eTUG; Michael Kellogg on behalf of the U.S. Telecom Association; and Philip Verveer, Former lead Justice Dept. Antitrust Counsel in original DOJ filing that led to AT&T breakup.