New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Finley
674 F.3d 225
4th Cir.2012Background
- RLECs in rural North Carolina sought interconnection with CMRS providers in 2005; arbitration followed after failed negotiations.
- NC Utilities Commission (NCUC) issued a RAO (Dec 20, 2007) and FAO (Dec 31, 2008) addressing POIs and transit costs.
- NCUC held there was a single point of interconnection (POI) on RLEC networks and that transit charges beyond the POI were borne by CMRS providers via reciprocal compensation.
- ICAs conforming to the NCUC’s FAO were filed and approved (Feb 24, 2009).
- CMRS providers sued in district court challenging the NCUC decisions as inconsistent with federal law; district court granted summary judgment in favor of RLECs/NCUC.
- Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the NCUC’s single-POI approach and transit-cost allocation consistent with the Act and regulations, and affirming state authority to modify TELRIC pricing under § 251(f)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must there be two POIs for indirect interconnection? | CMRS argues § 251(a)(1) implies two POIs when transit is used. | NCUC reasoned § 251(a)(1) silent on POI count; single POI permissible and practical. | Two POIs not required; single POI permissible for transit-based interconnection. |
| Who pays transit charges for RLEC-originated traffic? | CMRS contends CMRS should not bear transit charges under 51.703(b). | NCUC allocated transit costs to CMRS via reciprocal compensation and allowed transit as part of transport. | Transit costs may be recovered through reciprocal compensation; CMRS bears transit costs through arrangement. |
| Does § 251(f)(2) authorize modifying TELRIC pricing for RLECs? | CMRS argues § 251(f)(2) does not authorize modifying TELRIC pricing standards. | NCUC/APPs assert § 251(f)(2) plain language authorizes suspension/modification to aid small rural LECs, including TELRIC rules. | NCUC has authority under § 251(f)(2) to modify TELRIC guidelines for RLECs. |
| Is deference to NCUC’s equities-based reasoning appropriate? | CMRS contends equites-based reasoning exceeds statutory authority. | District court properly deferred Skidmore-like, given NCUC expertise and record. | Equities-based reasoning within a proper statutory framework was permissible; district court did not err. |
Key Cases Cited
- MCImetro Access Transmission Servs., Inc. v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 352 F.3d 872 (4th Cir. 2003) (TELRIC and interconnection framework; relevant to reciprocal compensation and interconnection disputes)
- Atlas Tel. Co. v. Okla. Corp. Comm'n, 400 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2005) (reciprocal compensation and interconnection obligations; rural LEC context)
- WWC License, L.L.C. v. Boyle, 459 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2006) (local dialing parity context; not controlling here but cited advancing discussion)
- GTE S., Inc. v. Morrison, 199 F.3d 733 (4th Cir. 1999) (state arbitration review standard; deference considerations)
- A.T. Massey Coal Co. v. Holland, 472 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 2006) (Skidmore deference considerations; consistency across decisions)