Global NAPs California, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission
624 F.3d 1225
9th Cir.2010Background
- The Telecommunications Act of 1996 created a competitive regime requiring LEC interconnection and reciprocal compensation governed by state interconnection agreements.
- Global NAPs California and Cox California Telcom entered a Network Interconnection Agreement on October 29, 2003, defining intraLATA toll traffic and compensation based on originating/terminating NPA-NXX coordinates.
- In June 2004 Cox terminated intraLATA toll traffic from Global and billed per the Agreement; Global refused to pay, claiming the traffic originated from VoIP providers and fell outside the Agreement’s scope.
- CPUC granted summary judgment for Cox, interpreting the traffic as intraLATA toll and rejecting Global’s federal-access-charge exemptions.
- Global challenged the CPUC’s orders in district court; the district court granted summary judgment upholding the CPUC’s interpretation, and Global appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CPUC arbitrarily interpreted intraLATA toll traffic to include VoIP traffic | Global: VoIP traffic is not intraLATA toll under the Agreement. | Cox: VoIP traffic fits intraLATA toll by NPA-NXX-based designation and local/toll definitions. | No; CPUC properly treated VoIP traffic as intraLATA toll per contract terms. |
| Whether a fact hearing was required to resolve the traffic’s nature for contract interpretation | Global: A fact hearing was necessary to determine traffic nature. | Cox: Material facts immaterial to contract interpretation; summary judgment appropriate. | No; summary judgment proper because traffic conceded as intraLATA toll and extrinsic evidence not needed. |
| Whether CPUC’s interpretation of the Agreement conflicts with federal law exemptions for VoIP | Global: VoIP traffic is exempt from federal access charges; CPUC cannot reach contrary result. | Cox: Reciprocal compensation under the interconnection agreement is contractual and not ruled by access charges exemptions. | No; CPUC interpreted contract, not imposing access charges; federal law does not bar enforcement. |
| Whether CPUC’s use of Boilerplate-language interpretation improperly regulated VoIP providers | Global: Interpreting boilerplate to impose VoIP obligations exceeds CPUC authority. | CPUC expressly resolves dispute under § 252 contract-interpretation authority; not a general rulemaking. | No; CPUC acted within its contractual-interpretation authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 621 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2010) (provides context on local-regulatory regime pre-1996 act and interconnection framework)
- Verizon Cal. v. Peevey, 462 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2006) (describes interconnection and reciprocal compensation framework)
- Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon New Eng., Inc., 505 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2007) (illustrates interconnection agreements and reciprocal compensation concept)
- Ill. Bell Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs Ill., Inc., 551 F.3d 587 (7th Cir. 2008) (contract interpretation governed by state law, not federal law for interconnection disputes)
- Pac. Bell v. Pac West Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disallows rulemaking interpretation of interconnection agreements; supports contract-specific interpretation)