Ball

Ball v. GTE Mobilnet of California

Good Law
81 Cal. App. 4th 529·96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 801
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 6, 2000C031783California4,939 words

Opinion

Opinion

Davis, J.

Recognizing the rapid growth of the cellular phone industry and related wireless communication methods (termed commercial mobile radio services (CMRS), or commercial mobile services), the United States Congress in 1993 amended the Communications Act of 1934. ( 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub.L. No. 103-66, § 6002 (Aug. 10, 1993) 107 Stat. 312 , 387-397; see In re Comcast Cellular Telecom. Litigation (E.D.Pa. 1996) 949 F.Supp. 1193, 1197 (Comcast Cellular).) Pursuant to its stated goals of deregulating CMRS while providing a basic federal regulatory framework, Congress amended section 332 of the Communications Act to provide: “[N]o State or local government shall have any authority to regulate the entry of or the rates charged by any commercial mobile service or any private mobile service, except that this paragraph shall not prohibit a State from regulating the other terms and conditions of commercial mobile services.” ( 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c)(3)(A), italics added (hereafter, section 332(c)(3)(A)); see Comcast Cellular, supra, 949 F.Supp. at p. 1197 .)

Plaintiffs here have sued every major provider and owner of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.