376 F.3d 539 | 6th Cir. | 2004
Before: GILMAN and COOK, Circuit Judges; CLELAND,
_________________ District Judge. [*] MCI T ELECOMMUNICATIONS (cid:88) _________________ (cid:45) C ORP ., COUNSEL (cid:45) Plaintiff-Appellee, (cid:45) No. 03-3525 ON BRIEF: Dennis G. Friedman, MAYER, BROWN, (cid:45) > v. ROWE & MAW, Chicago, Illinois, Daniel R. Conway, (cid:44) PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR, Columbus, (cid:45) Ohio, for Appellant. Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., JENNER & T HE O HIO B ELL T ELEPHONE (cid:45) BLOCK, Washington, D.C., Terri L. Mascherin, Daniel J. C OMPANY , d/b/a SBC O HIO , (cid:45) Weiss, JENNER & BLOCK, Chicago, Illinois, Duane W. (cid:45) Defendant-Appellant, Luckey, Columbus, Ohio, Steven T. Nourse, Jodi J. Bair, (cid:45) OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, (cid:45) A LAN R. S CHRIBER , R HONDA Ohio, for Appellees. (cid:45) H ARTMAN F ERGUS , J UDY A. (cid:45) _________________ J ONES , D ONALD L. M ASON , (cid:45) (cid:45) and C LARENCE D. R OGERS , OPINION (cid:45) J R ., in their Official _________________ (cid:45) Capacities as Commissioners (cid:45) CLELAND, District Judge. Defendant-Appellant Ohio of the Public Utilities (cid:45) Bell Telephone Company (“SBC”) appeals the district court’s Commission of Ohio, (cid:45) order affirming the arbitration decision of the Public Utilities Defendants-Appellees. (cid:45) Commission of Ohio (“PUCO”). Although PUCO arbitrated (cid:45) over 40 open issues between SBC and Appellee MCI (cid:78) Telecommunications Corp. (“MCI”), SBC appeals only one issue: whether the district court erred in its interpretation of FCC Rule 711(a)(3) and in affirming PUCO’s decision to
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 97-00721—Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., District Judge. necessary to minimize the barriers to market entry erected I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY during the period in which the incumbent provider functioned as a monopoly. Pursuant to the Act, the incumbent provider Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Implementing is required to negotiate an agreement, referred to as an Regulations “interconnection agreement,” with a new market entrant, or a competing local exchange carrier (“competing provider”). If
In 1996, pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the parties cannot agree upon certain terms in the agreement, (the “1996 Act” or “Act”), MCI began negotiating an either party can petition the state utility commission to “interconnection agreement” with SBC for telephone service arbitrate the open issues. See id. at § 252(b)(1). The state in Northeastern Ohio. Such agreements were made possible commissions arbitrate the dispute, ensuring that its resolution by the 1996 Act, which Congress enacted to “promote of the open issues meets the requirements of the 1996 Act and competition in all telecommunications markets, including the the Federal Communication Commission’s (“FCC’s”) local service market.” Michigan Bell Tel. Co. v. Climax Tel. implementing regulations. Id. at § 252(c). Co. , 202 F.3d 862, 865 (6th Cir. 1999). Congress sought to eliminate state-sanctioned monopolies and adopt a national
After the state utilities commission arbitrates the open policy for telecommunication competition in local markets. issues, the parties submit the completed interconnection See AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd. , 525 U.S. 366, 370 (1999) agreement to the state commission, which either approves the (“The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act or Act), final agreement or rejects it. The state commission may reject Pub.L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, fundamentally restructures local the agreement if it does not comply with the 1996 Act or the telephone markets. States may no longer enforce laws that FCC’s regulations, discriminates against other non-party impede competition, and incumbent [local exchange carriers] telecommunications providers, or is inconsistent with the are subject to a host of duties intended to facilitate market public interest. Id. at § 252(e). If either or both parties entry. Foremost among these duties is the [Local Exchange disagree with the interconnection agreement, as arbitrated by Carrier’s (LEC's)] obligation under 47 U.S.C. § 251(c) (1994 the state commission, they may seek review in federal district ed., Supp. II) to share its network with competitors.”). court. Id. at § 252(e)(6). Before the Act, local telephone service was mostly In the new competitive telecommunications marketplace, a provided by state-regulated monopolies, now commonly customer who places a call through his provider may be referred to as incumbent local exchange carriers (“incumbent routed from his provider’s network to another provider’s providers”). In this case, SBC is the incumbent provider for network in order to complete the call. This typically occurs telephone service in Northeast Ohio. when a person places a local call to someone who receives local telephone service from a different provider than that of
In order to promote competition in the telecommunications the caller (e.g., an SBC customer calls an MCI customer). In market, the 1996 Act requires incumbent providers to allow this situation, the calling party’s provider would require the new market entrants, such as MCI in this case, to utilize the assistance of the called party’s provider in switching the call No. 03-3525 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI 5 6 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI No. 03-3525 Telecommunications Corp., et al. Telecommunications Corp., et al. over to the separate network. Although the calling party pays This regulation is based on the FCC’s conclusion that the only its provider for the call, the called party’s provider incurs incumbent provider’s costs for transporting and terminating costs in transporting and terminating the call. In the absence a call should be a reasonable approximation, or “presumptive of an agreement with the calling party’s provider, the called proxy” of the costs for other providers. In the Matter of party’s provider would go uncompensated for its service. Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 , 11 F.C.C.R. 15,499, 16,040 Through interconnection agreements, the providers agree to (1996) (“Both the incumbent LEC and the interconnecting a compensation structure that allows parties from different carriers usually will be providing service in the same providers to seamlessly complete calls to one another. The geographic area, so the forward-looking economic costs 1996 Act requires providers to enter into “reciprocal should be similar in most cases. We also conclude that using compensation arrangements” to compensate each other when
the incumbent LEC's forward-looking costs for transport and inter-network calls are completed. Id. at § 251(b)(5). The termination of traffic as a proxy for the costs incurred by reciprocal compensation rates are to be based upon a interconnecting carriers satisfies the requirement of section “reasonable approximation of the additional costs” incurred 252(d)(2) that costs be determined ‘on the basis of a by the provider that transports and terminates the call that reasonable approximation of the additional costs of originates on another network. Id. at § 252(d)(2)(A)(ii). terminating such calls.’ Using the incumbent LEC's cost Congress, however, elected to avoid in-depth inquiries into studies as proxies for reciprocal compensation is consistent the actual costs incurred by providers. Id. at with section 252(d)(2)(B)(ii), which prohibits ‘establishing § 252(d)(2)(B)(ii) (the provision regarding reciprocal
with particularity the additional costs of transporting or compensation shall not be construed “to authorize the terminating calls.’”). The incumbent’s economic cost study Commission or any State commission to engage in any rate is relied upon to determine the appropriate costs because regulation proceeding to establish with particularity the smaller new entrants are typically not in a position to conduct additional costs of transporting or terminating calls, or to a “forward-looking economic cost study.” Id. require carriers to maintain records with respect to the additional costs of such calls.”). Instead, Congress left the Recognizing the intricacies of local telecommunications task of implementing the 1996 Act, including the reciprocal networks, beyond the general policy of symmetrical rates, the rate provision, to the FCC. Id. at § 251(d)(1). FCC established a more detailed two-tier scheme for
determining reciprocal compensation rates. The two-tiered In 1996, the FCC published its governing regulations approach takes into account the telecommunications regarding reciprocal compensation. The FCC concluded that equipment used to transfer and complete a particular call-- reciprocal compensation rates should be symmetrical between either “tandem” or “end-office” switches. Historically, interconnected telecommunications carriers and based on the incumbent providers used these two switches to route calls. incumbent provider’s cost studies. See 47 C.F.R. § 51.711(a). A tandem switch acts as a hub connecting other switches and Thus, the state commission should apply the same rate no is generally able to handle calls over a broad geographic area. matter which provider, the incumbent or competitor, End-office switches typically serve smaller geographic areas transports and terminates a call originating from the other’s and fewer customers. Acknowledging that the cost associated network. with transferring calls differs depending on the type of switch
used, the FCC held that “states may establish transport and No. 03-3525 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI 7 8 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI No. 03-3525 Telecommunications Corp., et al. Telecommunications Corp., et al. termination rates in the arbitration process that vary according One of the sticking points during negotiation of the to whether the traffic is routed through a tandem switch or interconnection agreement was the appropriate reciprocal directly to the end-office switch.” In the Matter of compensation rate that SBC would pay MCI when MCI Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the incurred costs by transporting and terminating a call on its Telecommunications Act of 1996 , 11 F.C.C.R. at 16042. The network that originated from SBC’s network. Rather than FCC also recognized that new entrants may utilize new using a series of tandem switches and end-office switches, technology other than the two switches commonly used by MCI utilized new technology, especially fiber optic rings, to incumbent providers. “In such event, states shall also reach all of its customers in a local service area by using only consider whether [these] new technologies (e.g., fiber ring or one switch--a “Siemen’s Class 5" telecommunications switch wireless networks) perform functions similar to those located in Cleveland, Ohio. The parties could not agree upon performed by an incumbent LEC's tandem switch and thus, the appropriate reciprocal compensation rate to compensate whether some or all calls terminating on the new entrant's MCI for transporting and terminating calls that originate on network should be priced the same as the sum of transport and SBC’s network, and thus submitted this issue, along with termination via the incumbent LEC's tandem switch.” Id . nearly 50 others, to PUCO for arbitration pursuant to
47 U.S.C. § 252.
Most important to the issue currently before the court, the FCC established a rule for determining whether the new PUCO considered the parties’ positions and accepted both provider’s switch generally serves the same role as a tandem written and live testimony during the arbitration proceeding, switch serves in the incumbent’s network (i.e., whether the and, on January 9, 1997, issued its Arbitration Award. In the entrant can charge the tandem rate when employing new Award, PUCO decided all outstanding issues and directed the technology). Rule 711(a)(3) provides: “Where the switch of parties to submit a modified interconnection agreement. a carrier other than an incumbent LEC serves a geographic PUCO decided that MCI could charge SBC the tandem area comparable to the area served by the incumbent LEC's reciprocal compensation rate rather than the lower end office tandem switch, the appropriate rate for the carrier other than reciprocal compensation rate. PUCO considered the prefiled an incumbent LEC is the incumbent LEC's tandem testimony of Maria Marzulla, a senior manager of MCI’s interconnection rate.” 47 C.F.R. § 51.711(3).
Local Network Engineering Group, who described MCI’s The Interconnection Agreement Between SBC and MCI technology and network capabilities. She testified that “MCI’s switches all serve areas at least equal in size if not In this case, MCI was beginning to offer local telephone greater than the serving area of the [incumbent provider’s] service in Ohio and sought an interconnection agreement tandem [switch],” and cited to examples of MCI’s network in from the incumbent provider, SBC. n 1994, under pre-Act
Baltimore and New York. Although during live testimony, pro-competitive state regulations, MCI applied to PUCO for Ms. Marzulla was unable to give an estimate of actual permission to offer local service in three Ohio counties: customers being served by MCI’s switch at the time of the Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Montgomery. PUCO examined hearing, she reemphasized that the MCI switch is capable of MCI’s business and technical capabilities and, on December serving a geographic area comparable to the area served by 31, 1996, certified MCI to provide local service in the three SBC’s tandem switch. SBC did not offer testimony or counties. evidence regarding the geographical reach of MCI’s switch, No. 03-3525 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI 9 10 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI No. 03-3525
Telecommunications Corp., et al. Telecommunications Corp., et al. but instead argued that MCI was required to show that it was actually served customers in a comparable geographic area as already servicing customers in a geographic area comparable SBC. to SBC.
On March 21, 2003, [1] the district court affirmed PUCO’s PUCO rejected SBC’s argument: decision awarding MCI the tandem reciprocal compensation rate. The court concluded that PUCO applied the correct The fundamental question then becomes: does MCI’s legal test because it considered the appropriate regulation, 47 switch located in Cleveland serve an area comparable to C.F.R. § 51.711(a). It then went on to conclude, under the that served by Ameritech’s tandem switch. We turn our arbitrary and capricious standard, that PUCO did not err in attention to MCI’s conditional certificate approved in finding that “MCI had the capacity to serve a region in Case No. 94-2012-TP-ACE, wherein the Commission northeastern Ohio for which it had applied and obtained a granted MC I authority to provide local Certificate of Operation.” (03/19/03 Order at 11.) The court telecommunications service in Cuyahoga, Franklin, and
deferred to PUCO’s previous determination that “MCI [was] Montgomery counties. We will presume, given the start- able to serve the area in question” and the issuance of an up nature of MCI’s operations, that MCI shall serve the operating license to MCI. ( Id. ) Accordingly, SBC’s claim area for which we found it worthy of a certificate. In our was dismissed. view, that is a comparable service area.
II. JURISDICTION
In the Matter of Petition of MCI Telecommunications Corp. for Arbitration Pursuant to Section 252(b) of the This case arises under the Telecommunications Act of Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Establish an 1996, which permits a party to appeal the final arbitration Interconnection Agreement with Ameritech Ohio , No. 96-888- decision of the state utilities commission to a federal district TP-ARB (Jan. 9, 1997) (“PUCO Arbitration”). PUCO based court. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6). Generally, this court has its decision on the “best information” it had and asked the jurisdiction over an appeal from the district court’s order parties to “provide regular reports to the Commission’s pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. telecommunications staff so that [it] may receive ongoing
Appellee PUCO, however, argues that jurisdiction is information.” ( Id. ) lacking because the case is either moot or because the Appeal of The Arbitration Decision majority of SBC’s challenge to the reciprocal compensation rate is not yet ripe for decision. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6), SBC sought review of the arbitration determination in the United States District Court (S.D. Ohio), challenging various aspects of PUCO’s decision, including the reciprocal compensation rate finding. [1] The matter remained pending before the district court for
SBC claimed that, to the extent MCI was permitted to charge app roxim ately six years. The district court stayed the action, awaiting the tandem reciprocal compensation rate, the agreement decisions from the FCC and United States Supreme Court that could have (entered into after the arbitration) violated 47 U.S.C. had a bearing on the case. In the meantime, while the action was pending, § 252(d)(2) because MCI had not shown that its switch the parties’ interconnection agreement expired and the parties entered into a new agreement in early 2003. No. 03-3525 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI 11 12 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI No. 03-3525 Telecommunications Corp., et al. Telecommunications Corp., et al. First, we disagree with the contention that this case has terms, the 2003 interconnection agreement does not render the been rendered moot by the parties’ 1997 interconnection instant appeal moot. agreement or the superseding interconnection agreement in
PUCO next argues that a refund, or retroactive relief, is not 2003. The fact that the parties accepted PUCO’s arbitration available to SBC under the “filed rate doctrine.” The classic decisions and incorporated them into their 1997 example of application of the filed rate doctrine, often interconnection agreement, and thus agreed to operate under referred to as the filed tariff doctrine, can be found in the such terms during the pendency of this appeal, does not Supreme Court’s decision in Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. preclude SBC from seeking reimbursement based on the Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94 (1915). In that case, the Supreme lower rate. MCI, a party to the 1997 agreement, agrees. If we Court held that a passenger who purchased a train ticket at a were to hold otherwise and find that the interconnection
rate misquoted by the ticket agent did not have a defense agreement rendered the appeal from the arbitration decision against the subsequent collection of the higher tariff rate by moot, telecommunication companies would be forced to forgo the railroad. entering into interconnection agreements in order to preserve their appeal. The new entrant to the market would not be able
Under the Interstate Commerce Act, the rate of the to efficiently serve its customers (without an interconnection carrier duly filed is the only lawful charge. Deviation agreement) until the appellate process ran its course, further from it is not permitted upon any pretext. Shippers and entrenching the incumbent provider and creating the risk that travelers are charged with notice of it, and they as well as the new entrant’s technology could become outdated in the the carrier must abide by it, unless it is found by the meantime. Parties are free to continue business relations with Commission to be unreasonable. Ignorance or an understanding that one party might pursue appeal, and thus misquotation of rates is not an excuse for paying or seek reimbursement, through the process permitted by federal charging either less or more than the rate filed. This rule law. See 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6). MCI maintained its is undeniably strict and it obviously may work hardship relationship with SBC with this understanding. See Indiana in some cases, but it embodies the policy which has been Bell Tel. Co. Inc. v. McCarty , 362 F.3d 378 (7th Cir. 2004) adopted by Congress in the regulation of interstate (considering the merits of an appeal from the arbitration commerce in order to prevent unjust discrimination. decision despite the fact that the parties entered into, and operated under, an interconnection agreement that
Id. at 97. The filed rate doctrine requires that common incorporated the arbitrator’s disputed decisions). carriers and their customers adhere to tariffs filed and approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies. In essence,
Similarly, the parties’ most recent interconnection PUCO argues that SBC cannot obtain a refund for rates paid agreement, entered into in 2003, does not affect the to MCI in the past under this doctrine. We disagree. justiciability of SBC’s appeal. The contract expressly permits either party to seek a judicial order revising the agreement
First, and most importantly, SBC is not arguing that the and authorizes retroactive relief (i.e., reimbursement for rates tandem rate itself should be different (i.e., SBC is not arguing paid). The parties reserved all rights and remedies with that the rate is incorrect or was unreasonably set) or that it is respect to collection of rates and charges under the per se unreasonable. The issue is whether SBC is required to interconnection agreement. Accordingly, by its express pay the tandem rate or the end office rate, which may depend No. 03-3525 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI 13 14 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI No. 03-3525 Telecommunications Corp., et al. Telecommunications Corp., et al. upon the interpretation of the regulations governing III. STANDARD OF REVIEW symmetrical rates. A ruling by this court will have no effect
We review the district court’s interpretation of Rule on the filed tariff or rate. Thus, SBC is not challenging the 711(a)(3) de novo and its ultimate factual findings under the filed tariff, but is merely appealing the arbitration decision arbitrary and capricious standard of review. Although the that applied one rate rather than another. Such appeals are district court reviewed PUCO’s arbitration decision strictly expressly permitted under the Telecommunications Act and under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, the the parties agreed that a refund could be sought in their most primary issue before that court, and currently before this recent interconnection agreement. PUCO has cited no court, is a question of law--whether FCC Rule 711(a)(3) persuasive authority otherwise.
requires that the new market entrant’s switch actually serve Further, the two most important purposes for the filed rate customers across a comparable geographic area in order for doctrine are not implicated if the court reviews PUCO’s the new entrant to charge the incumbent’s tandem interconnection rate. [3] The interpretation of the rule, a decision and the resulting rate terms of the interconnection agreement. The filed rate doctrine prevents carrier question of law, must be reviewed de novo . See Michigan discrimination by committing the carriers to one set tariff and Bell Tel. Co. v. Strand , 305 F.3d 580, 586 (6th Cir. 2002). preserves the role of administrative agencies in approving and IV. DISCUSSION setting rates, a practice at which they are particularly adept. See Fax Telecommunications Inc. v. A.T.&T. , 138 F.3d 479,
Although PUCO’s and the district court’s decisions are 489 (2d Cir. 1998) (describing the two principles emanating somewhat equivocal, the court accepts SBC’s proposition that from the filed rate doctrine). Neither of these principles are both PUCO and the district court issued their decisions, threatened in this case, nor is there a potential that SBC is awarding MCI tandem reciprocal compensation, based upon vying for a lower rate in some unfair manner or for some an interpretation of Rule 711(a)(3) that merely requires MCI’s ulterior motive. Rather, SBC merely wants the court to switch to have the ability to serve a comparable geographic review PUCO’s and the district court’s interpretation (and area rather than a requirement that MCI actually serve possibly application) of the regulations. The filed rate customers over the same geographic area. Rule 711(a)(3) doctrine does not reach a circumstance such as this one, and thus SBC is entitled to seek retroactive relief. [2] provides:
Where the switch of a carrier other than an incumbent LEC serves a geographic area comparable to the area served by the incumbent LEC's tandem switch, the [2] There is also no real dispute that SBC, if successful on appeal, may appropriate rate for the carrier other than an incumbent
also be entitled to prospective relief. We reject PUCO ’s misplaced argument that SBC’s claim for prospective relief is not yet ripe because the issue is currently fit for judicial review and will clarify not only future decisions affecting the interconnection agreem ent, but also the past and [3] current agreements. Moreo ver, SB C’s arguments regarding the potential SBC agrees that, under an interpretation that does not require actual that this issue could evade judicial review because of the relatively quick service to customers (the interpretation that it argues against), there is no turnover of interconnection agreements further persuades the co urt to challenge to the factua l finding that MCI’s switch ca n serve a geographic render a decision in this matter. area equ al in coverage to SBC’s. No. 03-3525 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI 15 16 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI No. 03-3525
Telecommunications Corp., et al. Telecommunications Corp., et al. LEC is the incumbent LEC's tandem interconnection As a practical matter, a new entrant to the rate. telecommunications market will not have as large a customer
base as an incumbent that has operated as a monopoly for a 47 C.F.R. § 51.711(a)(3). The court must decide whether this number of years. Under SBC’s interpretation, a new entrant rule requires the new entrant to be actually serving customers would operate under a significant disadvantage when it first over a comparable geographic area before charging the enters a particular market, and possibly forever, because it tandem interconnection rate or whether the new entrant’s would not be permitted to charge the higher tandem reciprocal capability to serve customers over a comparable geographic rate for its new technology even though that technology is area suffices. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the able to carry communications over expansive geographic district court’s decision and interpret Rule 711(a)(3) as areas. In essence, if a new entrant could not charge the requiring the new entrant’s switch to be capable of serving a
tandem rate until it had nearly as many customers as the comparable geographic area, as opposed to a requirement that incumbent, the new entrant may be hampered in gaining the new entrant actually serve customers in that area. market share (i.e., obtaining customers) because it may not be able to obtain full compensation for its switch and thus be First, the language of Rule 711(a)(3) does not require the unable to competitively charge its customers. This would switch to be serving customers dispersed over a certain thwart the main purpose behind the 1996 Act, the opening of geographic area. As MCI notes, “[n]othing in the text of Rule local telecommunications markets to competition. 711(a)(3) refers to the physical location of a carrier’s The FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau [6] recognized this customers. The grammatical object of the regulation’s language--the thing ‘served’ by the competing carrier’s in its Virginia Arbitration Order , in which it held that “the switch--is the ‘ geographic area ,’ not particular customers.” determination whether a [new entrant’s] switch ‘serves’ a The focus of Rule 711(a)(3) is on the switch’s ability to transmit communication over a certain area. [4] If a new entrant can offer a comparable area for switching and terminating
MCI’s custom er base exp ands, SB C will surely have to pay the tandem calls that originate on the incumbent’s network, the tandem reciprocal rate more frequently because more calls will be exchanged, but interconnection rate applies so that the new entrant may it will also reap the benefits of more calls being transferred from M CI’s recoup its approximate costs. [5] network to SB C’s for termination. Th us, the size of MCI’s customer base, even if much smaller than SBC’s, does not appear to create such a drama tic inequity in costs.
No. 03-3525 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI 19 Telecommunications Corp., et al. was not arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
NOTES
[*] The Honorable Robert H. Cleland, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. 1 No. 03-3525 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI 3 4 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI No. 03-3525 Telecommunications Corp., et al. Telecommunications Corp., et al. award MCI the tandem reciprocal compensation rate for calls incumbent provider’s network and buy the incumbent that originate on SBC’s network and terminate on MCI’s. We provider’s telecommunication services for a fair price. See 47 AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. U.S.C. §§ 251(a)(1) & (c). These arrangements were
[4]
[6] Perhaps a fitting example for illustrative (or grammatical) purposes The FCC d elegated the task of arbitrating an interconnection is a city fire department. Although the department may have never had agreement dispute, similar to the one in this case, to the Bureau. The to put ou t a fire or respond to a call on a particular block or locale within Bureau “advises and makes recommendations to the Co mmission, or acts the city, it still “serves” the entire city. for the Commission under delegated authority, in all matters pertaining to the regulation and licensing of communications common carriers and
[5] The court is not persuaded by SBC’s argument that the tandem ancillary operations (other than matters pertaining exclusively to the interconnection rate is an unfair rate to charge when MCI has fewer regulation and licensing of wireless telecommunications services and customers than SB C. If M CI has few customers, SB C will rarely have to facilities).” 47 C.F.R. § 0.91. “As such, it has unique expertise in the pay the tand em interconnection rate because few calls would be area of interpreting rules promulgated b y the FCC.” Indiana Bell Tel. transmitted from SB C’s network to MCI’s network. Conversely, as Co., Inc. v. M cCa rty , 362 F.3d 37 8, 386 (7th Cir. 2004). No. 03-3525 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI 17 18 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. MCI No. 03-3525 Telecommunications Corp., et al. Telecommunications Corp., et al. certain geographic area does not require an examination of the the agency delegates authority to a subdivision, ‘the decision competitor’s customer base.” Virginia Arbitration Order , 17 of the subdivision is entitled to the same degree of deference FCC Rec. at ¶ 307. The Bureau rejected the incumbent’s as if it were made by the agency itself.’” Id. at 387 (citing argument that the new entrant had to actually be serving MCI Metro Access Transmission Servs., Inc. v. BellSouth customers dispersed over a comparable geographic area to Telecommunications, Inc. , 352 F.3d 872, 880 n.8 (4th Cir. charge the tandem reciprocal rate under Rule 711(a)(3). 2003)). Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit held that it was Instead, it stated: required to follow the Bureau’s interpretation until the FCC ruled otherwise. We are not aware of FCC authority to the The tandem rate rule recognizes that new entrants may contrary and we are convinced, as was the Seventh Circuit, adopt network architecture different from those deployed that the Bureau’s decision is not only persuasive, but also by the incumbent; it does not depend upon how entitled to deference under Chevron . See 47 U.S.C. successful the [new entrant] has been in capturing a § 155(c)(3). ‘geographically dispersed’ share of the [incumbent’s] customers, a standard that would penalize new entrants. Under this interpretation of Rule 711(a)(3), the district We agree . . . therefore, that the requisite comparison court did not err in affirming the arbitration panel’s factual under the tandem rate rule is whether the [new entrant’s finding that MCI’s switch covered a geographic area switch is capable of serving a geographic area that is comparable to SBC’s. MCI described its technological comparable to the architecture served by the capabilities to the panel and offered the testimony of a senior [incumbent’s] tandem switch. manager from MCI who testified that MCI’s switches serve areas equal in size, if not greater than those served by the Id. incumbents. Finally, PUCO relied on the fact that MCI had obtained approval from PUCO to serve the three relevant As the Seventh Circuit recently held, the Bureau’s counties in Ohio. In light of the set-up costs and the interpretation should be afforded deference and thus result in procedures that MCI had already followed, the panel affirmance of the decisions below. In Indiana Bell Telephone determined that MCI was capable and ready to serve a Company v. McCarty , the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc , comparable geographic area. Thus, PUCO’s decision was not held that the decision of the Bureau outlined above is entitled arbitrary and capricious and the district court correctly to deference as a decision of the FCC interpreting its own affirmed PUCO’s decision. rules. 362 F.3d at 386 (“We find the [Bureau’s] pronouncement on this issue not only persuasive, given the V. CONCLUSION Act’s overarching goal of promoting competition and the [Bureau’s] expertise in this area, but one requiring deference PUCO and the district court applied the correct legal test-- as the voice of the FCC interpreting its own rules.”) (citing whether MCI, the new market entrant, had the ability to serve Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council , 467 U.S. customers in the same geographic area as SBC, the 837 (1984)). The Seventh Circuit acknowledged that the incumbent--and PUCO’s decision that MCI satisfied this test Bureau’s decision was subject to review by the FCC, but held that, “[w]hen, as here, Congress has expressly permitted delegation of authority by statute, see 47 U.S.C. § 155(c), and
