Autotel v. Nevada Bell Telephone Company, 697 F.3d 846

Autotel, a CMRS provider, seeks digital interconnection with AT&T Nevada, the incumbent LEC in Pahrump, Nevada.
Negotiations for an interconnection agreement failed; Autotel filed suit in federal court alleging §251/252 violations and failure to provide digital interconnection.
PUCN dismissed Autotel’s good faith claim as procedurally deficient; the court later granted summary judgment on the interim pricing claim.
FCC rules in 2005–2011 changed intercarrier compensation and negotiation procedures, affecting interim arrangements and pricing.
Autotel previously interconnected with AT&T Nevada since 1994; a preexisting interconnection existed during the alleged conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Autotel exhausted administrative remedies for good faith claim	Autotel exhausted by PUCN filings	Prudential exhaustion requires PUCN resolution; filings were deficient	Yes; dismissal affirmed for lack of exhaustion
Whether interim interconnection/symmetrical pricing obligations apply where an existing interconnection exists	Interim rules apply regardless of existing arrangement	Existing interconnection precludes interim/symmetrical requirements	No; AT&T had no interim obligation due to existing arrangement
Whether §51.717 relief may apply given changes to regulatory regime	Autotel may seek relief under §51.717	Regulatory changes undermine §51.717 availability	Remanded to address §51.717 claim in light of regulatory changes

Western Radio Servs. Co. v. Qwest Corp. (Western Radio I), 530 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2008) (prudential exhaustion for good faith claims before PUC must be met)
Western Radio Servs. Co. v. Qwest Corp. (Western Radio II), 678 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2012) (PUC dismissal on merits not binding on exhaustion analysis)
Verizon California, Inc. v. Peevey, 462 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2006) (interconnection framework and reciprocal compensation background)