The Federal/State Working Group's Report issued today. Like with the framework, consensus on some points proved easier than others. In the former category, the dual federalism model of the first 60+ years of communications rejected. The group's controversial questions centered then around the extent of preemption, and specifically preemption of all state rate regulation.
Some initial questions then:
1. Why not complete preemption of state authority; that is, why not cut the states out altogether?
2. Why leave any residual rates in place like the group does, even if it is a basic rate subject to attack under the framework's "unfair competition" standard?
3. How, exactly, would a delegation of competition policy authority to a given state work? Wouldn't there be inconsistent outcomes and procedures?
4. Counter to question 1, why not allow states more initial autonomy to experiment with different sorts of rate regulation and competition policy arrangements?
I am sure there are other questions and controversies that my fellow working group members can detail.
posted by Ray Gifford @ 9:02 AM | Federal/State Framework
Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)