My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/4/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
12/4/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:47 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:00:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/04/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Bird felt it was difficult for him to sit here <br />today, after all the research that went into this 12 years ago, <br />and vote for a resolution that would tell Congress to lift the <br />restrictions. He realized that Mr. Poe is a conscientious, civic <br />minded person who works hard for his company here in Vero Beach, <br />which is good for our community, but he feels uncomfortable in <br />determining whether or not these restrictions should be lifted. <br />Commissioner Scurlock concurred. <br />Bud Kleckner, 700 Holly Road, requested that the fol -lowing <br />letter be made a part of the record: <br />Zar- Ho l I v Fwd <br />Vero Beach, FL. 32963 1,L�29303� <br />December 3, 1990 <br />� RDPc 1990 <br />The Honorable Carolyn Eggert M FG`Jr4 <br />Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners v�0 <br />N �'� <br />Indian River County Administration Building �MMp <br />1840 25th Street <br />Vero Beach, FL. 32960 8�11915ti�� <br />Re: Proposed resolution regarding restrictions on Regional <br />Telephone Companies. <br />Dear Carolyn: <br />I respectfully request that the Indian River County County <br />Commission table without prejudice the resolution included in <br />agenda item 13A, urging Congress to adopt legislation to remove <br />the restrictions imposed upon the Bell Operating Companies. <br />The issue of competition in the telecommunications industry <br />was negotiated over several decades with thousands of hours -of <br />expert testimony. The Modified Final Judgment was the culmination <br />of the following: the first Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust <br />suit which resulted in the Consent Decree of 1956, the Cartertone <br />Decision in 1968, Long Distance Competition Decision (MCI)in <br />1969, the various "Computer Inquires" of the 1970's and 19801s, <br />and finally, the second DOJ antitrust suit which ended with the <br />"Modified Final Judgement" in 1982. Therefore, it does not <br />appear possible for the Indian River County Commission to make an <br />informed ,judgment on this complex subject, without holding <br />lengthy hearings from all interested parties. <br />The following is an excerpt from the letter written by the <br />Consumer Federation of America to Senator Fritz Hollings <br />regarding S.1981 "Telecommunications Equipment Research and <br />Manufacturing Competition Act of 199011: <br /># "Unless new regulatory tools are developed that prevent <br />cross -subsidization, which no past or current regulations <br />were able to do, consumers stand to lose more than they <br />could gain from lifting the AT&T consent decree's <br />manufacturing restriction. The hypothetical promises <br />associated with Bell Company manufacturing are far <br />overshadowed by the likelihood that regulation can neither <br />protect competition or prevent the the Bell companies from <br />loading excessive costs onto monopoly, basic voice <br />services." <br />DEC 4 1990 41 goo? F'AGc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.