People of State of Cal. v. F.C.C.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1990 |
| Docket Number | 87-7362,Nos. 87-7230,87-7441 and 87-7451,87-7233,87-7265,87-7361,s. 87-7230 |
| Citation | 905 F.2d 1217 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Petitioners, North American Telecommunications Association ("NATA"); National Association of Regulatory Commissioners ("NARUC"); Missouri Public Service Commission ("MPSC"), Petitioners-Intervenors, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent, Pacific Bell, et al., Respondents-Intervenors. PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Petitioners, North American Telecommunications Association ("NATA"); National Association of Regulatory Commissioners ("NARUC"), Petitioners-Intervenors, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent, Ameritech Operating Companies (Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Indiana Bell Telephone Co. Incorp., Michigan Bell Telephone Co., Ohio Bell Telephone Co., Wisconsin Bell, Inc.); et al., Respondents-Intervenors. PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent. PEOPLE OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, Petitioner, North American Telecommunications Association ("NATA"); Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell, Pactel Communications Companies, and Pacific Telesis Group; Iowa Utilities Board, Petitioners-Intervenors, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent, Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies ("Bell Atlantic"); et al., Respondents-Intervenors. PEOPLE OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, Petitioner, Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell, Pactel Communications Companies, and Pacific Telesis Group; Iowa Utilities Board; North American Telecommunications Association ("NATA"), Petitioners-Intervenors, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent, American Telephone and Telegraph, et al., Respondents-Intervenors. STATE OF MICHIGAN; Michigan Public Service Commission, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of America, Respondents. MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and U |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
James S. Blaszak and Charles C. Hunter, Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell, Washington, D.C., for the Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee.
Joseph P. Markoski and Herbert E. Marks, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Washington, D.C., for the ADAPSO.
James H. Wallace, Jr., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Washington, D.C., for the American Newspaper Publishers Ass'n.
Wayne V. Black, C. Douglas Jarrett and Mary Chambers Grandy, Keller & Heckman, Washington, D.C., for the American Petroleum Institute.
Francine J. Berry and David P. Condit, American Telephone and Telegraph Co., Basking Ridge, N.J.; David W. Carpenter and Cynthia A. Gray, Sidley & Austin, Chicago, Ill.; Howard J. Rubinoit, Sidley & Austin, Los Angeles, Cal.; Jonathan S. Hoak, Sidley & Austin, Washington, D.C., for the American Telephone and Telegraph Co.
Alfred Winchell Whittaker, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, D.C.; Floyd S. Keene and JoAnne G. Bloom, Ameritech, Chicago, Ill., for the Ameritech Operating Companies.
Arthur H. Stuenkel, Arkansas Public Service Com'n, Little Rock, Ark., for the Arkansas Public Service Com'n.
Gary M. Epstein and Aileen R. Amarandos, Latham & Watkins, Washington, D.C.; Mark J. Mathis, James R. Young, and Lawrence W. Katz, Bell Atlantic, Washington, D.C., for Bell Atlantic.
William B. Barfield and R. Frost Branon, Jr., BellSouth Corporation, Atlanta, Ga., for the BellSouth Corp.
Henry D. Levine and Brant S. Karstetter, Morrison & Foerster, Washington, D.C., for the California Bankers Clearing House Ass'n and the New York Clearing House Ass'n.
Janice E. Kerr, J. Calvin Simpson, and Ellen S. LeVine, California Public Utilities Com'n, San Francisco, Cal., for the California Public Utilities Com'n and the People of the State of Cal.
Theodore D. Frank and Vonya B. McCann, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin and Kahn, Washington, D.C., for the Centel Corp.
Jonathan Canif and Randolph J. May, Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds, Washington, D.C., for CompuServe.
Peter B. Kenney, Jr., Baker & Hostetler, Washington, D.C.; John S. Voorhees, Howrey & Simon, P.C., Washington, D.C., for the Computer and Business Equipment Mfrs. Ass'n.
John C. Wohlstetter, Contel Corp., Washington, D.C., for the Contel Corp.
Howard C. Davenport, District of Columbia Public Service Com'n, Washington, D.C., for the District of Columbia Public Service Com'n.
Philip M. Walker, Electronic Mail Association, Reston, Virginia, for the Electronic Mail Ass'n.
Diane Killory, Gen. Counsel, Daniel M. Armstrong and Associate Gen. Counsel, John E. Ingle, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Nancy E. Stanley, Linda L. Oliver, Laurel R. Bergold and Charles Oliver, Counsel, Federal Communications Com'n, Washington, D.C., for the Federal Communications Com'n.
Gregory J. Krasovsky, Florida Public Service Com'n, Tallahassee, Fla., for the Florida Public Service Com'n.
Alexander P. Humphrey, Gen. Elec. Information Services, Washington, D.C., for General Elec. Information Services.
James P. Denvir, Akin, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Washington, D.C., for Graphnet, Inc.
James R. Hobson and Daniel L. Bart, GTE Telephone Operating Companies, Washington, D.C.; Richard McKenna, GTE Telephone Operating Companies, Stamford, Conn., for the GTE Telephone Operating Companies.
Marsha H. Smith, Donald L. Howell, Michael S. Gilmore, Idaho Public Utilities Com'n, Boise, Idaho, for the Idaho Public Utilities Com'n.
Herbert E. Marks, Diane J. Cornell, James L. Casserly, and David Alan Nall, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Washington, D.C., for the Independent Data Communications Ass'n.
Thomas E. Kieper, Indiana Utility Consumer Counselor, Indianapolis, Ind., for the Indiana Utility Consumer Counselor.
Richard E. Wiley, Robert J. Butler, and Kurt E. DeSoto, Wiley, Rein & Fielding J. Roger Wollenberg, Roger M. Witten, and Andrew D. Roth, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D.C.; Kevin H. Cassidy, Intern. Business Machines Corp., Purchase, N.Y., for the Intern. Business Machines Corp.
Washington, D.C., for the Information Industry Ass'n.
International Transcription Service, Washington, D.C., for the Intern. Transcription Service.
Allan Kniep, Iowa Utilities Bd., Des Moines, Iowa, for the Iowa Utilities Bd.
Richard B. Severy, Ellen G. Block, Jeffrey H. Matsuura, John M. Scorce, MCI Communications Corp., Washington, D.C.; Marc P. Fairman, Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco, Cal., for the MCI Telecommunications Corp.
Peter G. Ballou, Maine Public Utilities Com'n, Augusta, Maine; Joel B. Shufman, Maine Public Advocate, Augusta, Maine, for the Maine Public Utilities Com'n.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Don L. Keskey and Henry J. Boynton, Asst. Attys. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for the State of Mich. and the Michigan Public Service Com'n.
Steven Dottheim, Missouri Public Service Com'n, Jefferson City, Mo., for the Missouri Public Service Com'n.
Paul Rodgers, Charles D. Gray, and Lisa M. Zaina, National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Com'rs, Washington, D.C., for the National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Com'rs.
Michael S. Schooler, Brenda L. Fox, and David L. Nicholl, National Cable Television Ass'n, Inc., Washington, D.C., for the National Cable Television Ass'n, Inc.
Robert A. Simpson, Acting Counsel for the New York Public Service Com'n, Albany, N.Y., for the New York State Dept. of Public Service.
Saul Fisher and Richard G. Warren, NYNEX, White Plains, N.Y., for the NYNEX Telephone Companies.
Albert H. Kramer and Denise Bonn, Wood, Lucksinger & Epstein, Washington, D.C., for the North American Telecommunications Ass'n.
James P. Tuthill, Margaret deB. Brown, and Betsy S. Granger, San Francisco, Cal.; Stanley J. Moore, Washington, D.C., for Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell, the PacTel Communications Companies, and the Pacific Telesis Group.
Mary L. Vanderpan, South Dakota Public Utilities Bd., Pierre, S.D., for the South Dakota Public Utilities Bd.
Michael J. Zpevak, Southwestern Bell, St. Louis, Mo., for Southwestern Bell.
Philip M. Walker, Telenet Communications Corp., Reston, Va.; Donald E. Ward, Ward & Mendelsohn, P.C., Washington, D.C., for the Telenet Communications Corp.
Stephen R. Bell, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Washington, D.C., for the Tymnet-McDonnell Douglas Network Systems Co.
Richard L. Thornburgh, U.S. Atty. Gen., Charles Rule, Andrea Limmer, Catherine G. O'Sullivan, Nancy Garrison, and Barry Grossman, Washington, D.C., for the U.S.
Martin T. McCue, Telephone Ass'n, Washington, D.C.; Randall B. Lowe, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Washington, D.C., for the U.S. Telephone Ass'n.
Dana A. Rasmussen and Robert B. McKenna, U.S. West, Washington, D.C., for U.S. West.
Charles M. Meehan, Shirley S. Fujimoto, and Nina M. Binstein, Keller & Heckman, Washington, D.C., for the Utilities Telecommunications Council.
Steven M. Schur and Robert J. Mussallem, Public Service Com'n of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., for Wisconsin Public Service.
Margery F. Baker and Kathryn C. Brown, of Counsel for Robert A. Simpson, Acting Counsel for New York Public Service Commission.
Petition for Review of Orders of the Federal Communications Commission.
Before FARRIS, BOOCHEVER and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners invoke our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2342(1) and 47 U.S.C. Sec. 402(a) to review orders of the Federal Communications Commission issued in a rulemaking proceeding known in the telecommunications industry as the Third Computer Inquiry or Computer III. 1 Petitioners dispute two discrete rulings by the Commission. First, petitioners challenge the ruling that the divested Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) no longer be required to maintain corporate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iowa Utilities Bd. v. F.C.C.
...Neither subsection confers additional substantive authority on the FCC. See id. §§ 154(i), 303(r); see also California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217, 1241 n. 35 (9th Cir.1990) (explaining that Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, in which section 154(i) is contained, confers only ancillary au......
-
Foster v. Hallco Mfg. Co., Inc.
...United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 721 F.2d 1305, 1314-17, 219 USPQ 1142, 1150-53 (Fed.Cir.1983); and California v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 905 F.2d 1217, 1245 n. 39 (9th Cir.1990); Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 321 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1988). Thus, we rely on the principles s......
-
Kahn v. I.N.S.
...ours. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971); California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir.1990). II As I noted in my original dissent, ease of administration is an important consideration in judging the rationality of ......
-
Ameritech Corp. v. US, 93 C 6642
...diminish the BOCs' ability to shift costs to their regulated services without detection in ratemaking proceedings." California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217, 1234 (9th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Western Elec. Co., 673 F.Supp. 525, 567-79 (D.D.C. 1987) (refusing initially to lift portion ......
-
Table of Authorities
...& Prof’l People for the Pub. Interest v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 585 N.E.2d 1032 (Ill. 1991), 234n73, 241n105 C California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990), 80n43, 132nn38–39, 158n116, 190n1, 200n23, 242n111, 301n33 California v. FCC, 124 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part sub n......
-
Rethinking broadband internet access.
...Report and Order, 104 F.C.C.2d 958 (1986) [hereinafter Computer III Phase I Order], vacated and remanded sub nom. California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990); Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Second Computer Inquiry), Final Decision, 77 F.C.C.2d 38......
-
The First Amendment and the Internet: the Press Clause Protects the Internet Transmission of Mass Media Content from Common Carrier Regulation
...Reconsideration and Second Further Reconsideration, FCC 89-226, 4 FCC Rcd. 5927 (Aug. 1, 1989), vacated in part, California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990); Report and Order, CC Docket No. 85-229, FCC 87-103, 2 FCC Rcd. 3072 (May 22, 1987), on reconsideration, Memorandum Opinion and O......
-
What do pizza delivery and information services have in common? Lessons from recent judicial and regulatory struggles with convergence.
...(1988) (Opinion and Order); Amendment Computer III, 4 F.C.C.R. 5927 (1989) (Opinion and Second Reconsideration), rev'd California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990); In re Computer III Remand Proceedings, 5 F.C.C.R. 7719 (1990) (Report and Order); In re Computer III Remand Proceedings, 6......