ENEMY OF THE STATE?

After suffering the ignominy of a Supreme Court decision that ratified TELRIC pricing, the lesser victory the RBOCs earned last week was small consolation. Though the high court affirmed the right of RBOCs to sue state regulators in federal court, it was nothing new. RBOCs always assumed they had the option to sue; last week's decision only removed the imaginary shield of the 11th Amendment that the Maryland PUC (and by extension, any PUC) hoped would immunize it to litigation. What made last week's decision seem more meaningful, though, was the way it seemed to reverberate some of the public comments RBOCs made after losing the TELRIC case. One SBC attorney in particular reminded Telephony that, despite TELRIC's new ossification, RBOCs could still sue the states over specific implementations of TELRIC prices. Last week the Supreme Court punctuated his remark. With the 11th Amendment defense out of the way, state PUCs are more aware than ever that disputes over pricing could lead to litigation. And relations between RBOCs and some PUCs are chilly enough already. When the New York State Public Service Commission, guided by TELRIC, tried to lower UNE prices earlier this year, Verizon hinted at threats of litigation as well as job and investment cuts in the state. Come on. RBOCs should have the right to federal review of state regulatory decisions, but despite last week's green light, they should resist the temptation to use the threat of legal action to get what they want from state PUCs.