Info edit
The trio of Talking Heads recorded their first demos of 'Psycho Killer', 'First Week, Last Week/Carefree', and 'Artists Only' for Beserkley Records early in 1976. [1]
Assignment 6 Part 1 edit
| Verizon v. FCC | |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Full case name | Verizon Communications v. FCC |
| Decided | May 13, 2002 |
‘’’’’Verizon Communications v. FCC’’’’’, 535 U.S. 467 (2002) [2], was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on May 13, 2002 , in an opinion written by Justice Souter. The Respondent, the Federal Communications Commission, received six out of eight votes with Justice Bryer and Justice Scalia dissenting. [3]
Verizon Communications was arguing that the FCC had an unreasonable way for setting rates for leasing network elements. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 entitles the FCC to set these rates and they do so on a forward looking basis, untied to the incumbents historical or past investments. [4]
In the certiorari from the Supreme Court to the Appeal court they state, “In order to foster competition between monopolistic carriers providing local telephone service and companies seeking to enter local markets provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act) entitle the new entrants to lease elements of the incumbent carriers local-exchange networks”. Other cases included in the same certiorari are: WorldCom, Inc., et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al., Federal Communications Commission et al. v. Iowa Utilities Board et al., [5], AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board et al. [6], General Communications, Inc. v. Iowa Utilities Board et al. [7]
References edit
- ^ Talking Heads The Early Years created June 01 2008, accessed January 31 2011.
- ^ [1] 535 U.S. 467 (2002)
- ^ [2] (2002)Verizon Communications v. FCC. 10 March 2011.
- ^ [3] (2003). Verizon Communications Inc. v FCC, 122 S. Ct. 1646 (2002). 11 CommLaw Conspectus 221 2003 Major Court Decisions, Winter 2002. (pp. 221-222). 7 February 2011.
- ^ [4] Iowa 51
- ^ [5] 525 U.S. 366 (1999)
- ^ [6] (2002) October Term, 2001. 10 March 2011.
External Links edit
 | This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
Assignment Notes edit
- Need factual additions to infobox
- Placeholders for future content and appropriate structure for it
- Formatting of references need updates, ref list repeats links
- Hidden category of feedback on user talk