Endnotes

[1] James N. Horwood & Wendy S. Lader, Telecommunications Crossroads Facing the Challenge. Municipally Owned Fiber Optic Loops: Opportunities and Barriers. 1995 NATOA Annual Conference. Alburquerque, New Mexico. Sept. 22, 1995.

[2] Supra note 1.

[3] Telecommunications Act of 1996. Amendment to the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 (1934).

[4] Supra note 1.

[5] 1995 Fla. Laws ch. 95-403; F.S. 364.16.

[6] This analogy has been developed in many different sources. Here, this paper borrows the California's Division of Strategic Planning Analogy.

[7] Skeptics who intone that changes in the access to information do not necessarily lead to a better education, and may worsen it by furnishing people with a surfeit of trivia, miss the significant change. The new technologies do not simply enhance information access. They change conditions for participating in the creation of knowledge, the exercise of skill, the work of interpretation. It is not information access but cultural participation that is widening significantl, for better or for worse. Robert McClintock, Reviewing the Progressive Contract with Posterity: On the Social Construction of Digital Learining Communities, (1996), available online URL http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/mcclintock/renew/, P 4 [author's note].

[8] Robert McClintock, Supra note 7, P 22. See Institute for Learning Technologies, available online URL http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/mcclintock/renew/index.htm.

[9] Supra note 7, P 15.

[10] Id. at P 39.

[11] The serious implications of a municipality qua information manager will not be discussed here. The role of the information manager is merely highlighted to demonstrate the varying functions of the municipality in the Information Age.

[12] Supra note 7, P 41.

[13] City of Seattle Request for Proposals For an Information Highway, available online URL http://www.pan.ci.seattle.wa.us/pan.ftp.txt.

[14] Enhancing California's Competitive Strength: A Strategy For Telecommunications Infrastructure (Nov. 1993), available online URL gopher://brie.berkeley.edu:2234/U/infra.

[15] Although the concept of the Internet seems to suggest that "dominant telecommunications firms" may become a ghost of the past, at least initially, local governments must step in to ensure equal access. Further, we already see dominance being established on the Internet. The dominant browser seems to be Netscape. The dominant search engine, Yahoo. On the other hand, the list of local service provideres seems to be endless--BridgeNet, ShadowNet, ELink, NetSide, etc.

[16] California is focusing on these objectives. See URL gopher://brie.berkeley.edu:2234/U/infra.

[17] James N. Horwood, Wendy S. Lader, Telecommunications Crossroads Facing the Challengee, Municipally Owned Fiber Optic Loops: Opportunities and Barriers. 1995 NATOA Annual Conference. Alburquerque, New Mexico. Sept. 22, 1995.

[18] Supra note 17, note 3: However, a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found to the contrary and held that a state regulatory commission is a "person" for purposes of 47 U.S.C. 401(b) and is bound by an FCC order mandating use of a particular set of separations procedures for allocating costs and investments between interstate and intrastate telephone operations. The court ruled that the definition of "person" in the Communications Act contains a listing of "several categories of entities that the term'includes'...[and is therefore] open-ended and not restricted to the examples enumerated in the statute." Hawaiian Telephone Co. v. P.U.C. of the State of Hawaii, 827 F.2d 1264, 1269 (1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1218 (1988).

[19] Supra note 17.

[20] Fla. Stat. ch. 337.401(1) (1995) The department and local governmental entities, referred to in ss. 337.401-337.404 as the "authority," that have jurisdiction and control of public roads are authorized to prescribe and enforce reasonable rules or regulations with reference to the placing and maintaining along, across, or on any road under their respective jurisdictions any electric transmission, telephone, or telegraph lines; pole lines; poles; railways; ditches; sewers; water, heat, or gas mains; pipelines; fences; gasoline tanks and pumps; or other structures hereinafter referred to as the "utility."

[21] Fla. Stat. ch. 337.401(3) (1995) If any municipal authority requires any telephone company to pay a fee or other consideration as a condition for granting permission to occupy streets and rights-of-way for poles, wires, and other fixtures, such fee or consideration may not exceed 1 percent of the gross receipts on recurring local service revenues for services provided within the corporate limits of the municipality by such telephone company. Included within such 1-percent maximum fee or consideration are all taxes, licenses, fees, and other impositions except ad valurem taxes and amounts for assessments for special benefits, such as sidewalks, street pavings, and similar improvements, and occupational license taxes levied or imposed by a muncipality upon the telephone company. This subsection shall not impair any franchise in existence on July 1, 1985.

[22] Fla. Stat. ch. 203.012(7) (1995) defines "toll telephone service" as

The term "toll telephone service" includes interstate and intrastate wide-area telephone service charges.

[23] Fla. Stat. ch. 203.012(3) (1995) defines "local telephone service" as

[24] Fla. Stat. ch. 203.012(5) (1995) defines "telecommunication service" as

[25] See Seattle, available online URL http://www.pan.cl.seattle.wa.us/pan/ftp.txt; California, available online URL gopher://brie.berkeley.edu:2234/U/infra; Alaska, available online URL http://www.alaska.net/~apuc/2001.html; Texas, available online URL http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~asncraft/paper.html.

[26] "Public utility" means every person, corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity and their lessees, trustees, or receivers supplying electricity or gas (natural, manufactured, or similar gaseous substance) to or for the public within this state; but the term "public utility" does not include either a cooperative now or hereafter organized and existing under the Rural Electric Cooperative Law of the state, a municipality or any agency thereof; any dependent or independent special natural gas district; any natural gas transmission pipeline company making only sales or transportations delivery of natural gas at wholesale and to direct industrial consumers; any entity selling or arranging for sales of natural gas which neither owns nor operates natural gas transmission or distribution facilities within the state; or a person supplying liquefied petroleum gas, in either liquid or gaseous form, irrespective of the method of distribution or delivery, or owning or operating facilities beyond the outlet of a meter through which natural gas is supplied for compression and delivery into motor vehicle fuel tanks or other transportation containers, unless such person also supplies electricity or manufactured or natural gas. Fla. Stat. ch. 366.02 (1995).

[27] James N. Horwood, Wendy S. Lader, Telecommunications Crossroads Facing the Challengee, Municipally Owned Fiber Optic Loops: Opportunities and Barriers. 1995 NATOA Annual Conference. Alburquerque, New Mexico. Sept. 22, 1995.

[28] Robert McClintock, Reviewing the Progressive Contract with Posterity: On the Social Construction of Digital Learining Communities, (1996), available online URL http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/mcclintock/renew/, P 42.

[29] Supra note 27.

[30] Id.; See AT&T v. Village of Arlington Heights, 620 N.E.2d 1040 (Ill. 1993), rehearing denied, (Oct. 4, 1993) (reversing 138 P.U.R. 4th 351 (Ill. 1992).

[31] Diginet, Inc. v. Western Union ATS, Inc., 958 F.2d 1388, 1400 (7th Cir. 1992), reh'g en banc denied, 1992 U.S. App. Lexis 6239 (7th Cir. Apr. 7, 1992).

[32] Supra note 27.

[33] Id.

[34] Paragould Cablevision v. City of Paragould, 930 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 963 (1991).

[35] Supra note 27.

[36] Id.

[37] Warner Cable Communications, Inc, v. City of Niceville, 911 F.2d 634, 640-42 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1222 (1991).

[38] Supra note 27.

[39] Title VII, S. 3(49) defines telecommunications carrier as "any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in section 226). A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services, except that the Commission shall determine whether the provision of fixed and mobile satellite service shall be treated as common carriage."

[40] Title VII, S. 3(44) defines local exchange carrier "as any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access. Such term does not include a person insofar as such person is engaged in the provision of a commercial mobile service under section 332(c), except to the extent that the Commission finds that such service should be included in the definition of such term."

[41] Letter from Jon L. Shebel, President and CEO of Associated Industries of Florida to the Florida Senate and Florida House of Representatives. (Feb.1, 1996.)(on file with author).

[42] Memo from Department of Revenue.(on file with author).

[43] H.R. REP. NO. 527-118-2-6 (1996)

[44] See URL http://www.icanet.net/tax/index1/htm.

[45] GEORGE GILDER, FROM WIRES TO WAVES, available online URL http://homepage.seas.upenn.edu/~gaj1/wiregg.html.

[46] Id.

[47] Id.

[48] Id.

[49] Id.

[50] Id.

[51] Id.

[52] Id.

[53] PCS HOMEPAGE

[54] Supra note 45.