SBC Communications welcomed the decision, describing it as “a victory for consumers.” SBC also said the decision was “a victory for those who support markets free of rules that have repeatedly been judged illegal and which have eliminated jobs, shrunk investment and hurt fair competition.”
Qwest Communications applauded the decision, saying the court’s action would “soon free customers of mandates that force them to subsidize the operations of Qwest’s competitors.”
AT&T warned that “the right of all Americans to choose their local telephone service provider is at stake, and the advancement of competitive broadband services is at risk. Consumers across the nation should be outraged at the prospect of being unplugged and underserved if the D.C. Circuit decision is left unchallenged.”
Sprint predicted that the decision would “prolong the regulatory uncertainty that has existed since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law more than eight years ago. The court’s decision will make it more difficult to foster local competition — particularly in the mass market — through the use of incumbent local carrier network elements at cost-based prices, contrary to what Sprint believes Congress intended in the ’96 Act.”
MCI warned that the court’s decision sharply restricts its ability to offer local phone service to residential customers by denying competitors the right to lease the facilities still controlled by local Bell monopolies. MCI said it was left “with little choice but to seek an emergency stay and full review from the U.S. Supreme Court. ”
The Voices For Choices coalition said the action was “a blow to the Bush Administration’s pro- competition, pro-consumer policies. As a result, this decision puts the Administration on the hot seat, as its only way to solve this problem is with a swift, aggressive appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Covad Communications described the DC Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision as “misguided and flawed, but not unexpected”. Covad asserted that the FCC’s pro-competition policies have already allowed 20 million customers to choose competitive local service providers other than the Bell monopoly.
Californians for Telecommunications Choice (CTC), a consumer and business advocacy group, said the decision was “an irresponsible setback to local phone competition and state’s rights. Without swift appeal, hundreds of thousands of local phone customers in California who have chosen to leave the Bell monopolies for a competing provider could see that choice stripped away.
