FCC JURISDICTION OVER LOCAL TELEPHONE UNDER THE 1996 ACT - FENCED OFF

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 promises to bring competition and d eregulation to local telephone service. To achieve these goals, the 19 96 Act creates a process whereby competing carriers will be forced to interconnect with each other. The Federal Communications Commission an d the states are in charge of administering this process, but the limi ts of federal and state power are not clearly specified by the 1996 Ac t. Instead, the 1996 Act leaves intact the basic jurisdictional model created by the Communications Act of 1934. Under this dual regulatory model, the FCC will regulate interstate communications and states will regulate intrastate communications. Courts have struggled for years t o articulate the limits of federal and state power, and the 1996 Act o nly complicates this situation. While Congress had hoped to regain res ponsibility for telephone regulation with the 1996 Act, a number of su its have already been filed and courts are struggling to articulate a new dual regulatory model. The outcome of these suits will have a majo r effect on whether the 1996 Act's goals are achieved. This Note analy zes the local competition provisions of the 1996 Act, the ambiguity in herent in those provisions, and the initial litigation over how the pr ovisions should be interpreted It then looks at the requirements for t he creation of a new dual regulatory model and proposes an approach co nsistent with the provisions of 1996 Act and the traditional dual regu latory model that will best achieve the goals of the 1996 Act.