Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T22:35:49.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Quarantines and Quagmires

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2009

J. Gregory Sidak
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Daniel F. Spulber
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Get access

Summary

A DOMINANT AND RECURRENT theme in the regulation of network industries has been that the firm possessing a bottleneck facility be restricted in the lines of business in which it may engage. The regulatory quarantine is one incumbent burden of the sort described in the preceding chapter. But it is typically not part of the original regulatory contract. Rather, the quarantine model has developed over time to address a variety of perceived evils of regulated monopoly. Its most visible example has been the line-of-business restrictions imposed on the regional Bell operating companies (RBOCs) by the now-defunct Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ), the consent decree that forbade, among other things, the RBOCs from providing certain forms of longdistance service. Although the quarantine model can be found in the electric utility industry also—most notably in the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935—the analysis in this chapter relies principally on examples from telecommunications, where the quarantine model again figured prominently in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The 1982 MFJ terminated one of the most significant antitrust suits since the breakup of Standard Oil. The breakup of the Bell System, which took effect on January 1, 1984, constituted a large-scale vertical divestiture. The divestiture assigned the long-distance and equipment manufacturing functions of the Bell System to AT&T. The local exchange services were divided among seven regional operating companies: Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX, Pacific Telesis, Southwestern Bell (now called SBC), and U S WEST.

The terms of the MFJ required the RBOCs to provide “equal access” to the local network to all long-distance carriers and subjected the RBOCs to line-of-business restrictions.

Type
Chapter
Information
Deregulatory Takings and the Regulatory Contract
The Competitive Transformation of Network Industries in the United States
, pp. 55 - 100
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×