[wvenable]

> But using Article 2 for that purpose is like using a sledgehammer on a finishing nail.

Is it? I don't think it's unreasonable at all to define, what is often the only ISP in a whole region, as a common carrier. It's practically the definition.

> Article 2 was aimed at the true AT&T telecom behemoths of the world.

And here we are with new telecom behemoths!

Commissions like the FCC and FTC exist to create regulations so that Congress is not writing hundreds to thousands of laws at a level of detail that they cannot handle. You might correct that Congress can act in this matter I'm not sure it's inappropriate for the FCC to do so.

[lr4444lr]

Then why didn't they step in to break up Ma Bell? That happened under anti-trust.

[wvenable]

I don't think the FCC has that kind of power and anyway it was AT&T itself proposed the breakup. The court was concerned with virtual integration and wanted AT&T to give up ownership of Western Electric which produced most of the telephone equipment in the US.