July 24, 2014

Court Upholds FCC Rule Requiring Big Carriers to Enter 'Commercially Reasonable' Roaming Agreements With Smaller Carriers

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling that requires large carriers such as Verizon and AT&T to enter "roaming" agreements with smaller carriers. According to CNET's Marguerite Reardon, "The court unanimously found that the FCC was well within its jurisdiction to require operators to offer roaming agreements to competitors on 'commercially reasonable' terms. If Verizon is unhappy with the rule, the court said that 'Verizon may choose not to provide mobile-Internet service.'"

In fact, the big carriers have another avenue if they are unhappy with the ruling: they may lobby Congress into passing a law to override the decision.


  • Verizon's corporate PAC contributed $1.5 million to federal candidates during the 2012 election cycle.
  • AT&T's corporate PAC contributed $2.4 million to federal candidates during the 2012 election cycle.

To see the itemized contributions made by Verizon and AT&T's PACs, download this spreadsheet.

Methodology: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions from Jan. 1, 2012—Nov. 17, 2012 to federal candidates from PACs controlled by Verizon and AT&T. Source: as of Dec. 2, 2012. If you use MapLight data please cite accordingly.

© Copyright MapLight

About the Author

MapLight is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, research organization that reveals money's influence on politics.

Elected officials collect large sums of money to run their campaigns, and they often pay back campaign contributors with special access and favorable laws. This common practice is contrary to the public interest, yet legal.

MapLight connects data on campaign contributions, politicians, votes, industries, companies, and more to show patterns of influence that could never be seen before. 

We currently research money and influence in the...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Pro