Features

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on a case that could affect how quickly American consumers see greater choice for local phone service — and perhaps lower prices – in a national market still dominated by the offspring of the old Bell system. 

The case involves a dispute over the fees that dominant local phone companies charge to lease their lines to rivals that want to offer competing services. The 1996 Telecommunications Act, which sought to crack open the local phone monopoly, laid this out as a key way for upstart companies to get into the market. 

The law allowed for telecom businesses, including long-distance providers, to lease phone lines and connect to existing networks run mostly by the regional Bells, the local phone companies severed from AT&T in the 1980s. 

Rival providers serve less than 7 percent of the nation’s 192 million local phone lines, according to government figures. A majority of these companies rely on the networks of the Bells and other dominant players to compete in the market. 

The fight before the high court involves the Federal Communications Commission’s system for how much competitors must pay phone companies to lease this equipment. In implementing the 1996 law, the FCC decided the rivals should pay based on the current and future worth of the existing network and its services. 

But Bell companies such as Verizon Communications – formed by the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE Corp.– say the FCC’s pricing structure ignores the billions of dollars they have spent over the years to build and maintain the phone system. 

They want a rate structure that includes the historical costs of running the network over the years. Verizon said Monday it was pleased by the court’s decision to review the case. 

The Bells also object to the way the commission required them to combine elements of existing phone networks for lease to companies that want to enter the market, if those companies request it. 

Local competitors, which support the FCC’s system, aren’t all fledgling upstarts. Such heavyweights as long-distance companies like WorldCom are also trying to get into local business. 

The FCC’s pricing structure “is critical if consumers are to finally have a choice for local phone carriers as promised by Congress nearly five years ago,” said Julie Moore of WorldCom, which leases Bell lines to offer local service in a number of markets. 

The commission contends its rules will spur “the development of competition in all communications markets,” said FCC general counsel Christopher Wright. 

Some companies have sought to bypass the existing phone networks. For example, AT&T and other cable operators have begun offering local phone service over their cable lines directly to people’s homes. And some consumers have replaced their regular phones with wireless service at home. 

But consumer advocates say these options are just developing and that a fair pricing structure is still needed to bolster competition for traditional local phone service. 

The court’s decision will determine “whether we are going to see choices develop in the marketplace at or below today’s prices levels or only at much higher price levels,” said Gene Kimmelman of Consumers Union, which supports the FCC’s rates. 

An appeals court threw out the government’s pricing structure last year, saying the costs should be based on actual equipment being provided by local phone companies rather than on hypothetical systems using the most efficient technology. 

But the appeals court did not embrace the Bell companies’ arguments that they should be compensated for their investment over the years in maintaining the phone system. 

Local phone companies, their rivals and the FCC all asked the Supreme Court to get involved. The court will not hear the case this term but is likely to do so in the fall. 

The case is a follow-up to a January 1999 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the federal government’s authority to set the price rules. 

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has stock in AT&T and MCI, did not participate in the decision to review the case. 

The cases are Verizon Communications v. FCC, 00-511; FCC v. Iowa Utilities Board, 00-587; General Communication Inc. v. Iowa Utilities Board, 00-602; AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, 00-590; WorldCom Inc. v. Verizon, 00-555. 

On the Net: Federal Communications Commission: http://www.fcc.gov