Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to boogie74
Re: This is not new
That is funny how language that is obviously directed at safeguarding competition is being perverted to an anti-competitive purpose.
It is obvious that your interpretation is contrary to the intent of the persons who wrote and voted in favor of that section. Any good judge would point out that it was not the intent of congress to legitimize monopolistic abuse in that section, and then the judge could construe it to mean something else.
The ILEC lawyers found a good excuse to do a bad thing, and the ILECs can pretend to act in good faith when, in reality, we know they aren't. All this scheming boils down to trying to get out of something that turned out to be a bad deal when long distance profits dropped. |
