SBC Communications, Inc. last week filed a lawsuit in federal court in
an attempt to declare parts of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
unconstitutional.
SBC said the 1996 landmark reform 'improperly discriminates against
SBC and the remaining five Bell Operating Companies by imposing
restrictions' that prohibit the them from competing for long-distance and
other services that other local carriers are free to provide.
SBC, which owns Southwestern Bell Corp., Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell and
the wireless operator Cellular One, filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.
'The sole objective of this lawsuit is to increase competition by
permitting SBC and the other RBOCs to provide long-distance and other
services,' said William Dreyer, SBC senior executive vice president, in a
prepared statement.
The RBOCs had been barred from offering long-distance in their own
service areas since the breakup of AT&T in 1984. But under the 1996 telecom
reform act, local carriers that have opened their service areas to
competition also may offer long-distance service.
However, two weeks ago the Federal Communications Commission said SBC
had not done enough to open its local market to rivals in Oklahoma and
barred the company from offering long-distance services in that area.
'The suit challenges only that portion of the act that singles out
and excludes SBC from competing in certain lines of business. SBC is not
challenging those portions of the act which require all local exchange
companies, including SBC, to open their local networks to competition,'
Dreyer said.
'This lawsuit has a narrow goal. We don't want to impose greater
burdens or restrictions on anyone else. We are looking for the same
opportunity to serve our customers as everyone else has and no more,'
Dreyer said.
SBC said it is challenging the telecom act's 'Special Provisions
Concerning Bell Operating Companies,' which explicitly singles out the
RBOCs by name. SBC contends that these provisions violate the
Constitution's separation of powers and the company's freedom of speech.
The lawsuit was immediately attacked by SBCs competitors, including
MCI Communications Corp.
'It is absurd that SBC is challenging the constitutionality of a law
that gives consumers the freedom to choose,' said Jonathan Sallet, MCI's
chief policy counsel.
'The Bill of Rights does not give monopolies the right to gouge
consumers. We trust the federal court will recognize this action for what
it is: a desperate attempt by an entrenched local monopoly to avoid opening
its local telephone market to competition,' Sallett added.
Busse is a correspondent with the IDG News Services San Francisco
bureau.
