ion Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability; Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, CC-Dockets 01-338, 96-98, and 98-147 (August 21, 2003). The rules on "network unbundling" in this order were subsequently overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals in U.S. Telecom Industry Association, et al. V. FCC and USA, No. 00-0012 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The FCC was about to publish new rules as this book went to press. 13. The United Kingdom has the longest track record: it opened its local market to competition from cable television companies and a second telephone carrier in 1985. How- ever, this market "opening" did not involve unbundling or the imposition of other whole- sale service requirements on incumbents. See Robert W. Crandall and Leonard Waverman, "Entry Strategies in Landline Markets," unpublished working paper, 2004. 14. Telecommunications Act of 1996, sec. 251[c][3]. 15. Ibid., sec. 251 [d][2]. 16. Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, CC Docket 96-98, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996). 17. AT&T Corp. V. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. 366 (1999). 18. Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 3696 (1999). Notes to Pages 11-15 19. United States Telecom Association et al. V. FCC, 290 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 20. See fn. 12. 21. In addition, incumbents must share any fiber-optic path to the final subscriber with entrants if the construction of such a fiber loop replaces the old copper loop, which must still be unbundled. 22. For a discussion of the economics of telecommunications interconnection charges, see Jean-Jacques Laffont and Jean Tirole, Competition in Telecommunications (MIT Press, 2000), chaps. 4 and 5. See also Mark Armstrong, "The Theory of Access Pricing and Interconnec- tion," 