Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

News, opinion and commentary

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » News, opinion and commentary

Telephone services: a growing form of 'foreign aid.'

Article Abstract:

US telephone companies pay quarterly subsidies to counterparts in other countries based on the number of calls placed to those countries. The payments, which totaled $2.4 billion in 1989, are a fast-growing part of the US trade deficit. These imbalances are an unforeseen consequence of competition in the US long-distance industry. Competition during the 1980s drove outbound rates down, but monopolies in other countries kept rates high. One result is that international businesses and families spread among several countries try to originate calls in the US. Outbound calls now outnumber inbound calls by 1.7 minutes to one minute. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), concerned that foreign companies are demanding more money than is justified, might impose unilateral limits on US payments. Central and South American nations, which could lose millions of dollars annually, protest the FCC's plan.

Author: Bradsher, Keith
Publisher: The New York Times Company
Publication Name: The New York Times
Subject: News, opinion and commentary
ISSN: 0362-4331
Year: 1990
International aspects, Long distance telephone services, Long-distance telephone service, International communication, Cost of Communications, International Communications

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Court bars F.C.C. rule on phones

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco overturned two Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rulings affecting computer information services provided by the Bell Regional Holding Companies (BRHC). The FCC had permitted the BRHCs to provide data communications through their local telephone companies rather than requiring separate subsidiaries. The FCC also forbad the states' communication industry and utility authorities from regulating these operations. The Court of Appeals ruled that both these decisions were invalid because proper procedures had not been followed. Industry analysts expressed concern that the BHRCs would have to do significant restructuring if the Court's decision stands. This decision was also viewed as a major action in the ongoing battle between the Federal government and the states over regulation of the telephone companies.

Author: Bradsher, Keith
Publisher: The New York Times Company
Publication Name: The New York Times
Subject: News, opinion and commentary
ISSN: 0362-4331
Year: 1990
Regulation, admin. of utilities, Courts, Cases, Laws, regulations and rules, Telecommunications industry, Information services, United States. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Regional Bell Operating Companies, Telecommunications transmission technologies, Government Regulation, Court Cases, Data Communications, Bell Regional Holding Companies

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA



Subjects list: Telecommunications services industry, United States. Federal Communications Commission, Telephone companies, Science and technology policy, Telephone Company
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Dealing for Gulfstream. Cendant ready to rule reservations. No vagrancy: Hotel Reservations expands
  • Abstracts: Sales shine through bad times. Foreign carmakers sizzle in cool sales. Diesel-sippers win fans as gas prices soar
  • Abstracts: Investors bailing out of Nortel. Nortel rises 8% on news of $1-billion (U.S.) deal
  • Abstracts: Oracle posts record profit for quarter; shares lead advance by data base stocks. Ashton-Tate plans layoffs; operating loss may rise
  • Abstracts: Phone pie is divided once more; F.C.C. vote extends local competition. California phone concerns get incentives
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.