Back to the future: How transportation deregulatory policies foreshadow evolution of communications policies

Information Society

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 273-291

  Cherry, Barbara A ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Broadband; Common carriage; Deregulation; Liability; Public utility; Sustainability; Telecommunications; Transportation; Universal service

Indexed keywords

EID: 52949138739     PISSN: 01972243     EISSN: 10876537     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01972240802356059     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Alexis, M. 1983. The political economy of federal regulation of surface transportation. In The political economy of deregulation, eds. R. G. Noll and B. Owens, pp. 115-131. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press.
2. American Airlines v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995).
3. Angus, W. D. 1968. Legal implications of "The Container Revolution" in international carriage of goods. McGill Law Journal 14:395-429.
4. Basedow, J. 1983. Common carriers - continuity and disintegration in U.S. transportation law, part I. Transportation Law Journal 13:1-42.
5. Basedow, J. 1984. Common carriers - continuity and disintegration in U.S. transportation law, part II. Transportation Law Journal 13:159-188.
6. Boomer v. AT&T, 309 F. 3d 404 (7th Cir. 2002).
7. Brown, D. 1999. Rural and business may benefit from big transportation funding increases. In Rural conditions and trends, vol. 9, pp. 38-43. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
8. Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307 (1925).
9. California Public Utilities Commission. Decision 05-01-058. Order modifying Decision 04-05-057. 2005 WL 391368 (CaI. P.U.C.) (2005).
10. Chen, J. 2004. The nature of the public utility: Infrastructure, the market, and the law. Northwestern University Law Review 98:1617-1708.
11. Cherry, B. 1999. The crisis in telecommunications carrier liability: Historical regulatory flaws and recommended reform. Norwell, MA: KIuwer Academic.
12. Cherry, B. 2003a. The political realities of telecommunications policies in the U.S.: How the legacy of public utility regulation constrains adoption of new regulatory models. Mich. State DCL Law Rev. 2003:757-790.
13. Cherry, B. 2003b. Utilizing "essentiality of access" analyses to mitigate risky, costly and untimely government interventions in converging telecommunications technologies and markets. CommLaw Conspectus 11:251-275.
14. Cherry, B. 2003c. Improving network reliability-Liability rules must recognize investor risk/reward strategies. In Rethinking rights and regulations: Institutional responses to new communication technologies, eds. L. Cranor and S. Wildman, pp. 309-333. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Cherry, B. 2005. Regulatory and political influences on media management and economics. In Handbook of media management and economics, eds. A. Albarran, S. Chan-Olmsted, and M. Wirth, pp. 91-111. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Cherry, B. 2006. Misusing network neutrality to eliminate common carriage threatens free speech and the postal system. Northern Kentucky Law Review 33:483-511.
17. Cherry, B. 2007a. The telecommunications economy and regulation as coevolving complex adaptive systems: Implications for federalism. Federal Communications Law Journal 59:369-402.
18. Cherry, B. 2007b. Consumer sovereignty: Redrawing the boundaries between industry-specific and general business legal regimes for telecommunications and broadband access services. Paper presented at the 35th TPRC Conference, Arlington, VA.
19. Cherry, B. 2008a. Maintaining critical legal rules to enable sustainable communications infrastructures. Georgia State University Law Review 24(4): in press.
20. Cherry, B. 2008b. Rediscovering critical rules of law for sustainable communications infrastructure. Paper presented at the European Communications Policy Research Conference, EuroCPR 2008, Seville, Spain.
21. Cherry, B., and J. Bauer. 2004. Adaptive regulation: Contours of a policy model for the Internet economy. Paper presented at the ITS 15th Biennial Conference, Berlin, Germany.
22. Cherry, B., and S. Wildman. 1999a. Unilateral and bilateral rules: A framework for increasing competition while meeting universal service goals in telecommunications. In Making universal service policy: Enhancing the process through multidisciplinary evaluation, eds. B. Cherry, A. Hammond, and S. Wildman, pp. 39-58. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Cherry, B., and S. Wildman. 1999b. Review of federal universal service policy in the United States. In Making universal service policy: Enhancing the process through multidisciplinary evaluation, eds. B. Cherry, A. Hammond, and S. Wildman, pp. 167-177. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Associates.
24. Dempsey, P. 1980. The experience of deregulation: Erosion of the common carrier system. Transportation Law Institute 13:121-176.
25. Dempsey, P. 1987. The deregulation of intrastate transportation: The Texas debate. Baylor Law Review 39:1-28.
26. Dempsey, P. 2000. The law of intermodal transportation: What it was, what it is, what it should be. Transportation Law Journal 27:367-417.
27. Dempsey, P. 2003. Transportation: A legal history. Transportation Law Journal 30:235-366.
28. Dreamscape Design v. Affinity Network, 414 F. 3d 665 (7th Cir. 2005), cert denied, 126 S. Ct. 828 (2005).
29. Federal Communications Commission. 2001. In the matter of federalstate joint board on universal service. Notice of proposed rulemaking. 16 FCC Red 9892.
30. Federal Communications Commission. 2002a. In the matter of inquiry concerning high-speed access to the Internet over cable and other facilities. Declaratory ruling and notice of proposed rulemaking. 17 FCC Red 4798.
31. Federal Communications Commission. 2002b. In the matter of federal-state joint board on universal service. Further notice of proposed rulemaking and report and order. 17 FCC Red 3752.
32. Federal Communications Commission. 2002c. In the matter of federal-state joint board on universal service. Report and order and second notice of proposed rulemaking. 17 FCC Red 24,952.
33. Federal Communications Commission. 2004a. In the matter of IP-enabled services. Notice of proposed rulemaking. 19 FCC Red 4863.
34. Federal Communications Commission. 2004b. In the matter of petition for declaratory ruling that pulver.com's Free World Dialup is neither telecommunications nor a telecommunications service. Memorandum and Order. 19 FCC Red 3307.
35. Federal Communications Commission. 2004c. In the matter of petition for declaratory ruling that AT&T's phone-to-phone IP telephony services are exempt from access charges. Order. 19 FCC Rcd 7457.
36. Federal Communications Commission. 2005. In the matter of appropriate framework for broadband access to the Internet over wireline facilities, universal service obligations of broadband providers. Report and order. 20 F.C.C.R. 14,853.
37. Fine, C., and J. de Figueiredo. 2005. Can we avoid repeating the mistakes of the past in telecommunications regulatory reform? Working Paper 2005-001. MIT Communications Futures Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
38. Hall, P. 1986. Governing the economy: The politics of state intervention in Britain and France. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Houchin, J., Student Author. 1997. Harris v. American Airlines: Flying through the turbulence of federal preemption and the Airline Deregulation Act. University of Miami Law Review 51:955-974.
40. Kearney, J., and T. Merrill. 1998. The great transformation of regulated industries law. Columbia Law Review 98:1323-1409.
41. Long, J., Student Author. 2000. Imports, Etc., Ltd. V. ABF Freight System, Inc.: The Eighth Circuit confuses rather than clarifies the deregulation of the trucking industry by applying the filed rate doctrine. Creighton Law Review 33:305-358.
42. Maislin Industries, Inc. v. Primary Steel, 497 U.S. 116 (1990).
43. McFarland, R. 1997. The preemption of tort and other common causes of action against air, motor, and rail carriers. Transportation Law Journal 24:155-189.
44. Mishra, R. 1990. The welfare state in capitalist society: Policies of retrenchment and maintenance in Europe, North America and Australia. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
45. Morales v. Trans World Airlines, 504 U.S. 374 (1992).
46. National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005).
47. Noam, E. 1994. Beyond liberalization II: The impeding doom of common carriage. Telecommunications Policy 18:435-450.
48. Noam, E. 1997. Will universal service and common carriage survive in the Telecommunications Act of 1996? Columbia Law Review 97:955-975.
49. Note. 1969. Legal and regulatory aspects of the container revolution. Georgia Law Journal 57:533-552.
50. Nuechterlein, J., and Weiser, P. 2005. Digital crossroads: American telecommunications policy in the internetage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Ravich, T. 2002. Re-regulation and airline passengers' rights. Journal of Air Law & Communication 67:935-998.
52. Sacasas, R. 1990. The filed rate doctrine: Casualty or survivor of deregulation? Duquesne Law Review 29:1-38.
53. Schmeltzer, E., and Peavy, R. 1970. Prospects and problems of the container revolution. Journal of Marine Law and Communication 1:203-239.
54. Skocpol, T. 1995. Socialpolicy in the United States: Future possibilities in historical perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55. Speta, J. 2002. A common carrier approach to internet interconnection. Federal Communications Law Journal 54:225-279.
56. Ting v. AT&T, 319 F. 3d. 1126 (9th Cir. 2003), cert denied, 540 U.S. 811 (2003).
57. U.S. Congress. Senate. Senate Report of the Select Committee on Interstate Commerce. 1886. Cullom Report. 49th Congress, 1st session. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
58. U.S. General Accounting Office. 2002a. Intercity passenger service: Congress faces critical decisions in developing a national policy. GAO-02-522T. Washington, DC.
59. U.S. General Accounting Office. 2002b. Options to enhance the long-term viability of the Essential Air Service Program. 49th Congress, 1st session. GAO-02-997R. Washington, DC.
60. U.S. General Accounting Office. 2003a. Intercity passenger rail: Issues for consideration in developing an intercity passenger rail policy. GAO-03-712T. Washington, DC.
61. U.S. General Accounting Office. 2003b. Commercial aviation: Factors affecting efforts to improve air service at small community airports. GAO-03-330. Washington, DC.
62. U.S. General Accounting Office. 2004. Transportation-disadvantaged populations: Federal agencies are taking steps to assist states and local agencies in coordinating transportation services. GAO-04-420R. Washington, DC.
63. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557 (1886).
64. Wilsford, D. 1994. Path dependency, or why history makes it difficult but not impossible to reform health care systems in abig way. Journal of Public Policy 14:251-283.
65. Wilson, W. 1987. The truly disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.