don't come between a harpy and her ice cream
hanging out in my favorite cafe, i was waiting for my drink by the register while a man next to me was ordering what appeared to be several pints of ice cream. it appeared, by the expression of the lady helping him, that this had already been a long, arduous process. it was going something like this:
"uhhh, do you have quarts of ice cream?"
"yup, right here!"
dialing cell phone..."they've got quarts, okay? what do you want? okay, okay." hangs up. "i'll take a quart, of, uhh...vanilla, and....shit. hold on." dials cell phone. "what was the other one you wanted? okay, okay." hangs up. "and a quart of chocolate peanut butter."
the lady smiles and nods and goes to scoop the quarts, then comes to the realization that they don't actually have a flavor called chocolate peanut butter and informs the man as such.
"shit." dials cell phone. "they don't HAVE chocolate peanut butter...i DON'T KNOW, OKAY? they're OUT, or something."
and totally audible from the other end of the line, at least to me: "BUTJESUS, I WANT MY CHOCOLATE PEANUT BUTTER!"
dude quickly hangs up. "i'll just get a quart of chocolate. plain chocolate. thanks."
in other news...if anyone is an expert, or, hell, even familiar with telecommunications law, i would greatly appreciate you contacting me. or if you even understand the following: Whether 47 U.S.C. ยง 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 creates a private right of action for a provider of payphone services to sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the FCC's regulations concerning compensation for coinless payphone calls.
seriously, what the fuck, law. what the fuck.
Comments
I don't know the answer (I'd guess it doesn't, but that's just a guess). I can tell you are using the wrong terminology. When you cite something as USC you are citing to the Code, which is where all the laws are bound together. So the communications act is a part of the code, not the other way around. It just so happens that Section 201(b) of the Communications Act is the same thing as Section 201(b) of Title 47, but you still wouldn't say 47 USC Section 201(b) of the Communications Act. You'd either say Section 201(b) of the Communications Act OR you'd say 47 USC 201(b). If you get stuck on the private cause of action thing let me know and I can try to find some time tonight to take a look at the issue.
that wasn't my phrasing, though - i cut and paste that from the supreme court cert that was granted, or whatever it's called. (though the cut and paste did fuck up the little section squiggle symbol.) i have found the reference in the act of 1934 as well...i'm just totally confused by the legal questions at hand here. because i'm dumb and this stuff, to me, seems incomprehensible. so any thoughts you might have would be wonderful!
i should probably also explain more fully why i asked that question. that particular issue is at hand in an upcoming supreme court ruling and i have to write a summary of everything that's happened up until the supreme court granted cert. you probably have access to lexis nexis...it's Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc. if you want to look it up. but you probably don't. it seems deadly boring.
What research have you done so far? The 9th Circuit decision is available here for frees:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/63e10539ab01c82d8825707600147873//0435287.pdf
I haven't read it but it appears to lay out the history and the issues.
i have read it - well, skimmed it, really - it's just more that i'm looking for help understanding it. like, i need it explained sloooowly and clearly, in layman's terms. i have ivs set up with the lawyers in both sides, so that'll probably help.
I've got a bunch of meetings and shit today. I can take a look at it tonight and give you a short summary if you want.
oh lord you're sweet! you don't have to do that. i mean, unless that kind of stuff is fun for you. cause it's head wrenching for me. but i'm pretty sure i'll be okay...there was just some initial freak out. not that i would turn down help, though.
When I took a quick look this morning it appeared to be a pretty straightforward administrative law case. I think the main issue was whether the agency's interpretation of the law was reasonable. It would probably only take me fifteen or twenty minutes to read the thing and tell you for sure what its about. If you think you've got a handle on it, though, I won't bother. You can email me if you want me to take a quick look at it. I've got friends who are journalists and this is the kind of thing I do for them on occasion, it's not a big deal.
This is the text of 47 USC section 201:
"
(b) All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful: Provided, That communications by wire or radio subject to this chapter may be classified into day, night, repeated, unrepeated, letter, commercial, press, Government, and such other classes as the Commission may decide to be just and reasonable, and different charges may be made for the different classes of communications: Provided further, That nothing in this chapter or in any other provision of law shall be construed to prevent a common carrier subject to this chapter from entering into or operating under any contract with any common carrier not subject to this chapter, for the exchange of their services, if the Commission is of the opinion that such contract is not contrary to the public interest: Provided further, That nothing in this chapter or in any other provision of law shall prevent a common carrier subject to this chapter from furnishing reports of positions of ships at sea to newspapers of general circulation, either at a nominal charge or without charge, provided the name of such common carrier is displayed along with such ship position reports. The Commission may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this chapter."
I don't see any private COA language in there. And I don't think telecom is an area of law with implied private causes of action. I may be wrong though. I'm no lawyer yet.
Read the 9th circuit opinion. The FCC regs say there is a private cause of action. It's evidently some kind of Chevron issue.
Post A Comment