Reuters: Regulatory News: UPDATE 1-US court rejects Verizon challenge to roaming rule

Reuters: Regulatory News Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

UPDATE 1-US court rejects Verizon challenge to roaming rule Dec 4th 2012, 16:15 Tue Dec 4, 2012 11:15am EST WASHINGTON Dec 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday upheld a 2011 rule that requires mobile data providers to offer roaming agreements to their competitors, rejecting a challenge brought by Verizon Wireless. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had sufficient authority to issue the rule, and the rule does not qualify as an unfair government seizure, the appeals court said in a unanimous decision. The FCC's rule - a product of increasing mobile use of data, including email and the Internet - requires that mobile operators like Verizon allow roaming by competitors' customers on "commercially reasonable" terms. It was squarely within the FCC's jurisdiction, similar to its rule requiring roaming agreements for mobile phone services, said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. If Verizon does not like the rule, then "Verizon may choose not to provide mobile-Internet service," Judge David Tatel wrote for a three-judge panel. "The data roaming rule merely defines the form mobile-Internet service must take for those who seek a license to offer it." The court also rejected Verizon Wireless' argument that the rule treats mobile data providers as "common carriers," a special designation under U.S. law that includes landline telephone services. Verizon Wireless - owned by Verizon Communications Inc and Vodafone Group PLC, and also known as Cellco Partnership - did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The case is Cellco Partnership v. FCC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 11-1135. Link this Share this Digg this Email Reprints

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions