RBOC long-distance ban illegal, judge rules

A U.S. federal judge late Wednesday ruled that sections in the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act are unconstitutional in that they effectively bar Bell local telephone operators from offering long-distance telephone service.

Wednesday's ruling by the Wichita Falls, Texas, judge is the result of a lawsuit filed by SBC Communications Inc. in July last year. The SBC lawsuit claimed that Sections 271 to 275 of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 unconstitutionally single out and prevent the former Bell companies from providing long-distance telephone and electronic publishing services, along with equipment manufacturing.

SBC, which owns Southwestern Bell, Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell and the wireless operator Cellular One, was joined in its jubilation over the judge's ruling by Bell Atlantic Corp. and U.S. West. Bell Atlantic said in a statement that the decision will result in a wider choice for consumers across the board as it will encourage long-distance operators to enter the local market. However, Bell's claims that the ruling will lead to stiffer competition on both local and long-distance markets did not appease Sprint Corp., which cautioned that the ruling may stymie competition on local markets.

"If the Bell Companies are permitted to enter the competitive long distance market in their own territories before they have opened their local markets to genuine and irreversible competition, they will have no incentive to ever open those local markets," said Sprint in a statement. The long-distance operator now plans to appeal the ruling in the Fifth Circuit Court.

SBC intends to begin offering long-distance telephone services in Oklahoma, where earlier this year federal regulators rejected its applications to operate such services, despite the approval of state regulators.