Bellsouth Telecommunications v. Mcimetro Access

Decision Date10 January 2003
Docket NumberNo. 00-12809.,00-12809.
Citation317 F.3d 1270
PartiesBELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, United States of America, Intervenor-Appellant, v. MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, Georgia Public Service Commission, Robert B. Baker, Jr., in his official capacity as Chairman, Lauren "Bubba" McDonald, in his offficial capacity as Commissioner, Robert Durden, in his official capacity as Commissioner, Stancil O. Wise, in his official capacity as Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Michael E. Brooks, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, Robert David Powell, Atlanta, GA, Mark B. Stern, Washington, DC, Michael K. Kellogg, Sean A. Lev, Aaron M. Panner, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans, P.L.L.C., Charles W. Scarborough, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., App. Staff, Washington, DC, for Appellants.

Brian J. Leske, WorlCom, Inc., Washington, DC, Kennard B. Woods, Roswell, GA, Teresa Wynn Roseborough, Haley B. Riddle, David Isaac Adelman, Carla W. McMillian, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Darryl M. Bradford, John J. Hamill, Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL, Thomas K. Bond, c/o Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm., Harold D. Melton, Georgia Dept. of Law, John W. Sandifer, Gerry, Friend & Sapronov, LLP, Daniel Stephen Walsh, Office of Consumer Affairs, Atlanta, GA, for Appellees.

C. LeeAnn McCurry, William N. Withrow, Jr., Troutman Sanders, Atlanta, GA, for Intervenor.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, BIRCH, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.*

BARKETT, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal we were originally asked to review two orders of the Georgia Public Service Commission (the "GPSC"), which interpreted the contract between BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. ("BellSouth") and MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. ("MCImetro"), and the contract between BellSouth and WorldCom Technologies, Inc. ("WorldCom"). Both contracts were interconnection agreements mandated by the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) ("FTCA"). The GPSC was asked to interpret the meanings of provisions in each contract which established reciprocal compensation rates for local telephone traffic.1 BellSouth claimed that calls made to internet service providers ("ISPs") could not be considered "local traffic" subject to reciprocal compensation under the contracts. MCImetro and WorldCom both claimed that such calls were "local" and therefore subject to reciprocal compensation. They demanded payment under their respective contracts and sought relief before the GPSC. The GPSC determined that calls to ISPs were "local traffic" under the contracts and thus reciprocal compensation must be paid by BellSouth. BellSouth then commenced an action in the district court, asserting that the GPSC decision was contrary to federal law and claiming that the district court had jurisdiction under 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district court affirmed the GPSC's order and BellSouth appealed. A split panel of this court did not reach the merits of the appeal, reversing the district court's order on the grounds that there was no statutory authority for the GPSC to interpret and enforce these interconnection agreements in the first instance.

A majority of the judges in active service granted the petition for rehearing en banc filed by MCImetro Access Transmission Services and WorldCom Technologies and vacated the panel opinion in this case. We now address, en banc, the appropriateness of the GPSC's order and the extent of federal jurisdiction over challenges to that order.

Discussion

To address the natural monopoly in place in the telecommunications industry and promote competition in local telephone service, Congress passed the FTCA in 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Its regulatory scheme was designed to counteract the deterrence of competition inherent in the high, fixed initial cost of telephone service and the need for all customers to interconnect with one another. Thus, in order to open intrastate telephone markets to competition, it required incumbent Local Exchange Carriers ("ILECs"), such as BellSouth, to share access to loops and exchanges with competing LECs ("CLECs"), like MCImetro and WorldCom. 47 U.S.C. § 251(a)(1).2 The FTCA further required ILECs and CLECs that are sharing resources to "establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for the transport and termination of telecommunications." 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5).3 These agreements were to be submitted for approval or rejection to the state public service commission and, in making this determination, the commissions were to consider several specific factors. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e) provides:

(e) Approval by State commission.

(1) Approval required.

Any interconnection agreement adopted by negotiation or arbitration shall be submitted for approval to the State commission. A State commission to which an agreement is submitted shall approve or reject the agreement, with written findings as to any deficiencies.

(2) Grounds for rejection.

The State commission may only reject —

(A) an agreement (or any portion thereof) adopted by negotiation under subsection (a) of this section if it finds that —

(i) the agreement (or portion thereof) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or

(ii) the implementation of such agreement or portion is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity; or

(B) an agreement (or any portion thereof) adopted by arbitration under subsection (b) if it finds that the agreement does not meet the requirements of section 251 [47 U.S.C. § 251], including the regulations prescribed by the Commission pursuant to section 251 [47 U.S.C. § 251], or the standards set forth in subsection (d) of this section.

(3) Preservation of authority.

Notwithstanding paragraph (2), but subject to section 253 [47 USC § 253], nothing in this section shall prohibit a State commission from establishing or enforcing other requirements of State law in its review of an agreement, including requiring compliance with intrastate telecommunications service quality standards or requirements.

(4) Schedule for decision.

If the State commission does not act to approve or reject the agreement within 90 days after submission by the parties of an agreement adopted by negotiation under [47 U.S.C. § 252(a)], or within 30 days after submission by the parties of an agreement adopted by arbitration under [47 U.S.C. § 252(b)], the agreement shall be deemed approved. No State court shall have jurisdiction to review the action of a State commission in approving or rejecting an agreement under this section.

(5) Commission to act if State will not act.

If a State commission fails to act to carry out its responsibility under this section in any proceeding or other matter under this section, then the Commission shall issue an order preempting the State commission's jurisdiction of that proceeding or matter within 90 days after being notified (or taking notice) of such failure, and shall assume the responsibility of the State commission under this section with respect to the proceeding or matter and act for the State commission.

(6) Review of State commission actions.

In a case in which a State fails to act as described in paragraph (5), the proceeding by the Commission under such paragraph and any judicial review of the Commission's actions shall be the exclusive remedies for a State commission's failure to act. In any case in which a State commission makes a determination under this section, any party aggrieved by such determination may bring an action in an appropriate Federal district court to determine whether the agreement or statement meets the requirements of [47 U.S.C. § 251] and this section.

While § 252 expressly gives state commissions authority to approve or reject interconnection agreements, the statute does not specifically say that this empowerment includes the interpretation and enforcement of interconnection agreements after their initial approval. We agree with all the parties before us, however, that a common sense reading of the statute leads to the conclusion that the authority to approve or reject agreements carries with it the authority to interpret agreements that have already been approved. We find further support for this conclusion in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Verizon Md., Inc. v. PSC, 535 U.S. 635, 122 S.Ct. 1753, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002), in the decisions of all other circuit courts to have considered the question, and in the determination of the Federal Communications Commission, (" FCC"), which is entitled to deference in the interpretation of the pertinent statute. See In re Starpower, 15 F.C.C.R. 11277, ¶ 6, at 1129-80, 2000 WL 767701 (2000).

The Verizon case involved a public service commission order like the one before us that had resolved the question of whether calls made to an ISP could be considered "local calls" subject to reciprocal compensation pursuant to the interconnection agreement of the parties. While the procedural posture of Verizon differs from that of the case at bar, the Verizon case arose from a set of facts identical to those here. In Verizon, WorldCom and Verizon had negotiated an interconnection agreement that had been approved by the Maryland Public Service Commission (the "MPSC"). Several months after the interconnection agreement had been approved, Verizon refused to pay WorldCom for calls made to ISPs. WorldCom filed a complaint with the MPSC. The MPSC determined that, as a matter of state contract law, ISP calls were compensable local traffic under the interconnection agreement between Verizon and WorldCom. Verizon sued the MPSC in federal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Global Naps, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 2 d1 Agosto d1 2004
    ... ... MCIMetro Access Transmission Services, LLC; American Communications Services Of ... case arises from the regulatory scheme created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act or Act), Pub.L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, to promote ... through which [the 1996 Act] is [implemented and] enforced." BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. MCImetro Access Transmission Servs., Inc., 317 F.3d ... ...
  • Core Communications v. Verizon Pennsylvania
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 18 d3 Julho d3 2007
    ... ... agreement formed and approved pursuant to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-404, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) ("Telecommunications ... transmission and routing of telephone exchange service and exchange access; ...         (B) at any technically feasible point within the ... Verizon's predecessor (Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc.) and MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc ...         Between the fall ...          BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. MCImetro Access Transmission Servs., Inc., 317 F.3d ... ...
  • Core Communications v. Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 9 d3 Maio d3 2007
    ... ... agreement formed and approved pursuant to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-404, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) ("Telecommunications ... transmission and routing of telephone exchange service and exchange access; ...         (B) at any technically feasible point within the ... Verizon's predecessor (Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc.) and MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc ...         Between the fall ...          BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. MCImetro Access Transmission Servs., Inc., 317 F.3d ... ...
  • Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Tex. v. Sanchez
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 11 d5 Março d5 2005
    ... ... who are threatening to violate [federal law]."); see also BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. MCImetro Access Transmission Servs., Inc., 317 F.3d ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Regulated Industries
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II
    • 2 d3 Fevereiro d3 2022
    ...law interpretations, but only under an “arbitrary and capricious” standard); BellSouth Telecomms. v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Servs., 317 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (ruling that, in addition to having authority to approve interconnect agreements in the first instance, state ut......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II
    • 2 d3 Fevereiro d3 2022
    ...Telecomm. v. Kentucky PSC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69152 (E.D. Ky. 2007), 1473 BellSouth Telecomm. v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Servs., 317 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc), 1481 Bell v. Cherokee Aviation Corp., 660 F.2d 1123 (6th Cir. 1981), 195, 832 Bell v. Fur Breeders Agric. Coop.,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT