New Yorker: "A Clear Violation of Obama's Promise"

[merrily]

195. What was your point about 2002?

The 2002 case had to do with telephone rate setting for Verizon. The FCC won most of of the case. Didn't seem that relevant to interpreting the 2014 case though. Never found what you call the 2002 designation. But, I guess that doesn't matter, either, because according to the head of the FCC, I was right about the 2014 case to begin with.

Next time you ask me to make a winning legal argument for my interpretation of a case, I might press my counter request for you winning legal argument refuting me a bit harder than I did this time. Just saying.



Thanks, though because the 2002 case was good to see.

Can't say I read every word of the 2002 case, but it delved into the days when Ma Bell was a monopoly and the D of J broke it up. One of my relatives was part of the inhouse legal department at main corporate headquarters. Not the head, but relatively senior. He worked on both the antitrust suit and the two year break up. Ma Bell/ATT compensated those that did the latter very well and gave them their choice of Baby Bells to work for after the break up. He chose Georgia.

What the public may never have known then was that Ma Bell wanted that break up. The operating companies, which it agreed to spin off, were very costly to operate and the long distance operation, which the D of J "let" Ma Bell keep, had been subsidizing them.

Grew up hearing that story from him. He'd laugh and laugh every time he told it. He passed a few years ago and reading the case brought good memories. So not a total waste of my time by any means.