Antitrust Reform Act of 1995 - Authorizes Bell operating companies (BOCs) to apply to the Attorney General, notwithstanding the Modification of Final Judgment entered into on August 24, 1982 (AT&T consent decree), for authorization to provide alarm monitoring services or interexchange telecommunications services. Requires such application to describe with particularity the nature and scope of each activity and of each product, service, and geographic market for which authorization is sought. Sets forth provisions concerning application procedures, determinations by the Attorney General, and judicial review of such determinations. (Sec. 4) Prohibits a BOC, until one year after this Act's enactment, from manufacturing or providing telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment, with qualified limitations on such activities after such period. Makes an exception for previously authorized activities. (Sec. 5) Prohibits a BOC with monopoly power in any exchange service market area from: (1) discriminating in any relevant market, between itself or an affiliated enterprise and any other person or between any two such other persons, with respect to any product or service related to the provision or use of telecommunications service if the effect is to substantially lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce; and (2) using proceeds obtained from providing exchange service in such market to subsidize, in any relevant market, specified activities if the effect may be to substantially lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce. (Sec. 6) Provides for enforcement of this Act through the U.S. Attorney's Office, including a private right of action with injunctive relief.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.1641 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.1641 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.1641 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.1641 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.