WASHINGTON-The Federal Communications Commission on May 25 denied a petition filed by litigants in a lawsuit complaining that certain of the former GTE Corp.’s billing practices were unjust and unreasonable, but it left open the question of whether the practices are unjust and unreasonable in this particular context.
“We are pleased with the [FCC’s] ruling, which validates that in a competitive marketplace there are a whole range of competition issues, including billing,” said Jeffrey Nelson, a spokesman for Verizon Wireless-the successor to GTE’s wireless business.
The FCC was given primary jurisdiction on these issues in a case known as White vs. GTE Corp. filed in U.S. District Court in Florida.
The industry practices at issue include charging customers for dead airtime; charging for unanswered or unconnected calls; measuring the time of a call from the time the “send” button is pushed; and rounding up any of the above charges to the next minute.
Verizon Wireless is involved in the lawsuit because it inherited the case with the merger of Bell Atlantic Corp. and GTE. Ironically, Verizon no longer owns the specific licenses in question. They were traded to Alltel Corp., while Verizon kept the licenses previously held by PrimeCo.
James A. Staack, the attorney for James J. White, said the FCC’s ruling was not unexpected and the plaintiffs will go back to court to focus on the context of GTE’s billing practices and show how they are unjust and unreasonable. The paperwork should be filed within the next two weeks, Staack said.
The FCC’s decision was not unexpected because it closely mirrored a decision reached last year in a case involving Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems-now Cingular Wireless Inc.
In both cases, the industry argued the FCC could not rule against them because to do so would amount to ratemaking and they are pre-empted from rate regulation. In 1993, Congress pre-empted state entry and rate regulation of commercial wireless services, but allowed states to oversee other terms and conditions of service. It is the latter jurisdiction that consumer advocates, state attorneys general, state regulators and lawmakers are relying on in battles with mobile-phone firms and which the plaintiffs are likely now to hang their hat on as they return to court in Tampa.
