stating that “the state commissions’ plenary authority to accept or reject these [interconnection] agreements necessarily carries with it the authority to enforce the provisions of agreements that the state commissions have approved”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “the state commissions’ plenary authority to accept or reject these [interconnection] agreements necessarily carries with it the authority to enforce the provisions of agreements that the state commissions have approved”
- ILECs must provide requesting carriers with services of equal quality to those they provide themselves
- “[T]he provision of federal district court review contained in subsection 252(e)(6) is the exclusive means of retaining review of state commission determinations under the Act.”
- “It is entirely possible for a state interconnection or access regulation, order, or policy to vary from a specific FCC regulation and yet be consistent with the overarching terms of section 251 [of 47 U.S.C.].”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
120 F.3d 753
67 USLW 3153 , 1997-2 Trade Cases P 71,876 ,
8 Communications Reg. (P&F) 1179
IOWA UTILITIES BOARD, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Paging Network, Inc.; Nextwave
Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business Association; Worldcom,
Inc.; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public Utility
Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Oregon Public Utility
Commission; North State Telephone Company; Western
Alliance; Independent Telephone and Telecommunications
Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company; Concord Telephone
Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company; Public Utilities
Commission of the State of Hawaii; American Public
Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom Group, Inc.;
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; Southern New England
Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc Coalition of
Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies; Pacific
Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition; Kentucky
Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation Commission;
Public Service Commission of the State of Wyoming; Rhode
Island Public Utilities Commission; Public Service
Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama Public
Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
THE SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North tate Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; The Ad
Hoc Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
state of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable
Daniel K. Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott;
Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of
Respondent.
BELL ATLANTIC CORPORATION; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group, Petitioners,
SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public Service
Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone Association;
Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL Telephone
Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation; Oregon Public
Utility Commission; North State Telephone Company; Western
Alliance; Independent Telephone and Telecommunications
Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company; Concord Telephone
Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company; Public Utilities
Commission of the State of Hawaii; American Public
Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom Group, Inc.;
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; Southern New England
Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc Coalition of
Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies; Pacific
Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition; Worldcom,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Kentucky Public Service
Commission; Kansas Corporation Commission; Public Service
Commission of the State of Wyoming; Rhode Island Public
Utilities Commission; Public Service Commission of
Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama Public Service
Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg; New
Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public Service
Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.;
The Competition Policy Institute; Association for Local
Telecommunications Services; Cellular Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Paging Network, Inc.; Small
Cable Business Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office
of Public Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
AMERITECH CORPORATION, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Oregon Public Utility
Commission; North State Telephone Company; Western
Alliance; Independent Telephone and Telecommunications
Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company; Concord Telephone
Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company; Public Utilities
Commission of the State of Hawaii; American Public
Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom Group, Inc.;
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; Southern New England
Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc Coalition of
Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies; Pacific
Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition; Kentucky
Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation Commission;
Public Service Commission of the State of Wyoming; Rhode
Island Public Utilities Commission; Public Service
Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama Public
Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
US WEST, INC., Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US Telephone Association; Arkansas
Public Service Commission; ALLTEL Telephone Services
Corporation; Ameritech Corporation; Oregon Public Utility
Commission; North State Telephone Company; Western
Alliance; Independent Telephone and Telecommunications
Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company; Concord Telephone
Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company; Public Utilities
Commission of the State of Hawaii; American Public
Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom Group, Inc.;
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; Southern New England
Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc Coalition of
Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies; Pacific
Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition; Kentucky
Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation Commission;
Public Service Commission of the State of Wyoming; Rhode
Island Public Utilities Commission; Public Service
Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama Public
Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living;Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
GTE SERVICE CORPORATION; GTE Alaska, Incorporated; GTE
Arkansas, Incorporated; GTE California, Incorporated; GTE
Florida, Incorporated; GTE Midwest, Incorporated; GTE
South, Incorporated; GTE Southwest, Incorporated; GTE
North, Incorporated; GTE Northwest, Incorporated; GTE
Hawaiian Telephone Company, Incorporated; GTE West Coast,
Incorporated; Contel of California, Inc.; Contel of
Minnesota, Inc.; Contel of the South, Inc., Petitioners,
Rock Hill Telephone Company; Bell Atlantic Corporation;
Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific Telesis Group; SBC
Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public Service Commission;
US West, Inc.; US Telephone Association; Arkansas Public
Service Commission; ALLTEL Telephone Services Corporation;
Ameritech Corporation; Oregon Public Utility Commission;
North State Telephone Company; Western Alliance;
Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance;
Roseville Telephone Company; Concord Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; Utah Department
of Commerce, Division of Public Utilities; Public Service
Commission of Utah; Public Service Commission of the State
of South Carolina; Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging
Forum, Inc., doing business as National Silver Haired
Congress; U.S. Coalition on Aging; College for Living;
Council of Silver Haired Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of
Area Agencies on Aging; Missouri Association for the Deaf;
Missouri Council of the Blind; Presidents' Club for
Telecommunications Justice; Paraquad, Rural Advocates for
Independent Living; Services for Independent Living;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado;
Department of Public Utilities of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Connecticut, Department
of Public Utility Control; New York Telephone Company; New
England Telephone and Telegraph Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Allied Associated Partners;
Geld Information Systems; Pronet, Inc.; Winstar
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Rural
Telecommunications Group; Excel Telecommunications, Inc.;
Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network, Inc.; Nextwave Telecom,
Inc.; Small Cable Business Association; Metrocall, Inc.;
Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY; New England Telephone and
Telegraph Company, Petitioners,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company, The Ad Hoc Coalition
of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies, Pacific
Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition; Kentucky
Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation Commission;
Public Service Commission of the State of Wyoming; Rhode
Island Public Utilities Commission; Public Service
Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama Public
Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control,
Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications; L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
CINCINNATI BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; U.S. West Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc., KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; The Public Service
Commission of the State of New York, Petitioners,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce,Division of Public
Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah; Public
Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Allied Associated Partners;
Geld Information Systems; Pronet, Inc.; Winstar
Communications, Inc.; U.S. One Communications Services;
Comcast Corporation; Frontier Corporation; Anaheim,
California Public Utilities Department; City of Long Beach,
California; City of Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless,
Inc.; National Association of State Utility Consumer
Advocates; Time Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.;
Personal Communications Industry Association; Rural
Telecommunications Group; Excel Telecommunications, Inc.;
Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network, Inc.; Nextwave Telecom,
Inc.; Small Cable Business Association; Metrocall, Inc.;
Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; Maryland Public Service Commission; US
West, Inc.; US Telephone Association; Arkansas Public
Service Commission; ALLTEL Telephone Services Corporation;
Ameritech Corporation; Oregon Public Utility Commission;
North State Telephone Company; Western Alliance;
Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance;
Roseville Telephone Company; Concord Telephone Company;
Rock Hill Telephone Company; Public Utilities Commission of
the State of Hawaii; American Public Communications
Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission; Southern New England Telephone
Company; The Ad Hoc Coalition of Telecommunications
Manufacturing Companies; Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota
Independent Coalition; Kentucky Public Service Commission;
Kansas Corporation Commission; Public Service Commission of
the state of Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities
Commission; Public Service Commission of Wisconsin; State
of Texas; Alabama Public Service Commission; Citizens
Telephone Company of Kecksburg; New Mexico State
Corporation Commission; Public Service Commission of the
State of Montana; GTE Service Corporation; Utah Department
of Commerce, Division of Public Utilities; Public Service
Commission of Utah; Public Service Commission of the State
of South Carolina; Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging
Forum, Inc., doing business as National Silver Haired
Congress; U.S. Coalition on Aging; College for Living;
Council of Silver Haired Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of
Area Agencies on Aging; Missouri Association for the Deaf;
Missouri Council of the Blind; Presidents' Club for
Telecommunications Justice; Paraquad, Rural Advocates for
Independent Living; Services for Independent Living;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado;
Department of Public Utilities of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Connecticut, Department
of Public Utility Control; New York Telephone Company; New
England Telephone and Telegraph Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Pronet, Inc.; Winstar
Communications, Inc.; U.S. One Communications Services;
Comcast Corporation; Frontier Corporation; Anaheim,
California Public Utilities Department; City of Long Beach,
California; City of Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless,
Inc.; National Association of State Utility Consumer
Advocates; Time Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.;
Personal Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.; PagingNetwork,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Geld Information Systems; Metrocall, Inc.;
Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission of
Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama Public Service
Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg; New
Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public Service
Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum, L.P.; National Cable Television
Association, Inc.; MCI Telecommunications Corporation;
Sprint Corp.; Cox Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular
Systems, Inc.; Western Wireless Corporation; American
Communications Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The
Competition Policy Institute; Association for Local
Telecommunications Services; Cellular Telecommunications
Industry Association; GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.;
General Communication, Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers
Association; Consumer Federation of America; Ad Hoc
Telecommunications UsersCommittee; Information Technology
Industry Council; America's Carriers Telecommunication
Association; Jones Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications,
Inc.; Teleport Communications Group, Inc.; Allied
Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems; Rural
Telecommunications Group; Pronet, Inc.; Winstar
Communications, Inc.; U.S. One Communications Services;
Comcast Corporation; Frontier Corporation; Anaheim,
California Public Utilities Department; City of Long Beach,
California; City of Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless,
Inc.; National Association of State Utility Consumer
Advocates; Time Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.;
Personal Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc.; doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
SOUTH DAKOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc., Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; The Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California, Petitioners,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Council of the Blind; Presidents' Club for
Telecommunications Justice; Paraquad, Rural Advocates for
Independent Living; Services for Independent Living;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado;
Department of Public Utilities of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Connecticut, Department
of Public Utility Control; New York Telephone Company; New
England Telephone and Telegraph Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,,,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc., Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall,, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
UNITED STATES TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Industry Association; GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.;
General Communication, Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers
Association; Consumer Federation of America; Ad Hoc
Telecommunications Users Committee; Information Technology
Industry Council; America's Carriers Telecommunication
Association; Jones Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications,
Inc.; Teleport Communications Group, Inc.; Rural
Telecommunications Group; Allied Associated Partners; Geld
Information Systems; Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications,
Inc.; U.S. One Communications Services; Comcast
Corporation; Frontier Corporation; Anaheim, California
Public Utilities Department; City of Long Beach,
California, City of Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless,
Inc.; National Association of State Utility Consumer
Advocates; Time Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.;
Personal Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc., Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
RURAL TELEPHONE COALITION, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado;
Department of Public Utilities of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Connecticut, Department
of Public Utility Control; New York Telephone Company; New
England Telephone and Telegraph Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of the State of Colorado;
Department of Public Utilities of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Connecticut, Department
of Public Utility Control; New York Telephone Company; New
England Telephone and Telegraph Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc,; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
MISSOURI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
ALLTEL TELEPHONE SERVICES CORPORATION, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; Ameritech
Corporation; Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State
Telephone Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone
and Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone
Company; Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone
Company; Public Utilities Commission of the State of
Hawaii; American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG
Telecom Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumers' Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.; Paging Network,
Inc.; Nextwave Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business
Association; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumer's Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
ALIANT COMMUNICATIONS CO., Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Paging Network, Inc.; Nextwave
Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business Association; Worldcom,
Inc.; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public Utility
Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumer's Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, United States of America,
Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Paging Network, Inc.; Nextwave
Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business Association; Worldcom,
Inc.; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public Utility
Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumer's Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents.
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Paging Network, Inc.; Nextwave
Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business Association; Worldcom,
Inc.; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public Utility
Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumer's Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott; Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner,
Bell Atlantic Corporation; Bellsouth Corporation; Pacific
Telesis Group; SBC Communications, Inc.; Maryland Public
Service Commission; US West, Inc.; US Telephone
Association; Arkansas Public Service Commission; ALLTEL
Telephone Services Corporation; Ameritech Corporation;
Oregon Public Utility Commission; North State Telephone
Company; Western Alliance; Independent Telephone and
Telecommunications Alliance; Roseville Telephone Company;
Concord Telephone Company; Rock Hill Telephone Company;
Public Utilities Commission of the State of Hawaii;
American Public Communications Council, Inc.; ICG Telecom
Group, Inc.; Minnesota Public Utilities Commission;
Southern New England Telephone Company; The Ad Hoc
Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies;
Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Minnesota Independent Coalition;
Kentucky Public Service Commission; Kansas Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Wyoming; Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission; Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin; State of Texas; Alabama
Public Service Commission; Citizens Telephone Company of
Kecksburg; New Mexico State Corporation Commission; Public
Service Commission of the State of Montana; GTE Service
Corporation; Utah Department of Commerce, Division of
Public Utilities; Public Service Commission of Utah;
Public Service Commission of the State of South Carolina;
Tennessee Regulatory Authority; Aging Forum, Inc., doing
business as National Silver Haired Congress; U.S. Coalition
on Aging; College for Living; Council of Silver Haired
Legislatures; Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging;
Missouri Association for the Deaf; Missouri Council of the
Blind; Presidents' Club for Telecommunications Justice;
Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living; Services
for Independent Living; Public Utilities Commission of the
State of Colorado; Department of Public Utilities of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Oklahoma Corporation
Commission; Public Service Commission of the State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control; New York
Telephone Company; New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, Intervenors on Appeal,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; United States of
America, Respondents,
AT&T Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association;
MFS Communications Company, Inc.; Airtouch Communications,
Inc.; Nextlink Communications, L.L.C.; Sprint Spectrum,
L.P.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; MCI
Telecommunications Corporation; Sprint Corp.; Cox
Communications, Inc.; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.;
Western Wireless Corporation; American Communications
Services, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; The Competition Policy
Institute; Association for Local Telecommunications
Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association;
GST Telecom, Inc.; ACC Corp.; General Communication,
Inc.; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Consumer
Federation of America; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users
Committee; Information Technology Industry Council;
America's Carriers Telecommunication Association; Jones
Intercable, Inc.; Telecommunications, Inc.; Teleport
Communications Group, Inc.; Rural Telecommunications Group;
Allied Associated Partners; Geld Information Systems;
Pronet, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; U.S. One
Communications Services; Comcast Corporation; Frontier
Corporation; Anaheim, California Public Utilities
Department; City of Long Beach, California; City of
Manassas, Virginia; Cable & Wireless, Inc.; National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Time
Warner Communications Holdings, Inc.; Personal
Communications Industry Association; Excel
Telecommunications, Inc.; Paging Network, Inc.; Nextwave
Telecom, Inc.; Small Cable Business Association; Worldcom,
Inc.; Metrocall, Inc.; Texas Office of Public Utility
Counsel, Intervenors on Appeal,
Consumer's Utility Counsel Division, Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs; Honorable John D. Dingell;
Honorable W.J. (Billy) Tauzin; Honorable Rick Boucher;
Honorable Dennis Hastert, Amici on Behalf of Petitioner,
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.; Honorable Ernest F.
Hollings; Honorable Ted Stevens; Honorable
Daniel K. Inouye; Honorable Trent Lott;
Honorable Edward J. Markey,
Amici on Behalf of Respondent.
Nos. 96-3321, 96-3406, 96-3410, 96-3414, 96-3416, 96-3418,
96-3424, 96-3430, 96-3436, 96-3444, 96-3450, 96-3453,
96-3460, 96-3507, 96-3519, 96-3520, 96-3603, 96-3608,
96-3696, 96-3708, 96-3709, 96-3756, 96-3901, 96-3906 and 96-3982.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 1997.
Decided July 18, 1997.
As Amended on Rehearing Oct. 14, 1997.
Diane Carol Munns (argued), Des Moines, IA, for State Commissioners (Iowa Utilities Board; Md Public Service; APSC; HUC; MPUC; KPSC; KCC; PSCW; AL Public Service; NMSCC; MPSC; PSC; PCC; CUC; COPUC; People of the States of New York, Public Service, New York; SD Public Service; NC Utilities; CA Public Utilities; MS Public Service; MO Public Service; PS Public Utility).
William P. Barr (argued), Stamford, CT, for Bell Atlantic Corp.; Bellsouth Corp.; Pacific Telesis; SBC Communications; US West; GTE; Ameritech; and NYNEX.
Thomas P. Hester, Kelly R. Welsh, John T. Lenaham, Ameritech Corp., Chicago, IL, Stephen M. Shapiro, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, IL, Kenneth s. Geller, Donald M. Falk, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Washington, DC, on the brief for Ameritech Corp.
Maureen E. Mahoney (argued), Washington, DC, for USTA and Rural Telephone.
Mark R. Kravitz (argued), New Haven, CT, for North State Telephone; Concord Telephone; Rock Hill Telephone; Roseville Telephone; SNET; Cincinnati Bell; Pacific Telecom; ALLTEL Telephone Services; Aliant Communications Co.; New York Telephone; New England Telephone.
Christopher J. Wright (argued), Washington, DC, for Federal Communications Commission.
Bruce J. Ennis (argued), Washington, DC, and David W. Carpenter (argued), Chicago, IL, for intervenors Aging Forum, U.S. Coalition on Aging, College for Living, Council for Silver Haired Legislatures, Missouri Alliance of Area Agencies on Aging, Missouri Association for the Deaf, Missouri Council for the Blind, President's Club for Telecommunications Justice, Paraquad, Rural Advocates for Independent Living, Services for Independent Living, Ad Hoc Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies, American Electric Power Co., AT&T Corp., MCI, ACC, ACTA, Comcast, Cable & Wireless, Allied Communications, CTA, Excel, GST, Cox, GCI, ICG, KMC, MFS, National Cable Television, Nextlink, Sprint Corp., CTRA, Teleport, Vanguard Cellular, US One, Western Wireless, Winstar, Worldcom, Western Alliance, Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, Competition Policy, RTG, ProNet, PageNet, SCBA.
Glenn B. Manishin (argued), Washington, DC, for intervenor Consumer Federation of America.
Irwin Popowsky (argued), Harrisburg, PA, for intervenor National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates.
Robert A. Long (argued), Washington, DC, for intervenor CMRS Providers.
Walter Steimel, Jr., Marjorie K. Conner, Shirley S. Fujimoto, Thomas P. Steindler, Thomas J. Navin, Karl R. Moor, Washington, DC, Suzanne Alldredge, Birmingham, AL, Christine M. Gill, Kris Anne Monteith, Washington, DC (on the brief), for intervenors American Electric Power Serivce Corporation, Commonwealth Edison Company, Northern States Power Company, and Pennsylvania Power Company.
Rodney L. Joyce, Washington, DC, J. Thomas Nolan, Kensington, MD (on the brief), for Ad Hoc Coalition of Telecommunications Manufacturing Companies.
1
Allan Kniep, Richard G. Morgan, Suellen L. Young, Arthur H. Stuenkel, Mark Fogelman, San Francisco, CA, Cindy Miller, Brenda H. Cole, Washington, DC, Clarence M. Nagao, Honolulu, HI, Stephen H. Kukta, Amy E. Dougherty, Lexington, KY, Richard A. Drom, Norristown, PA, Charles D. Gray, Sacramento, CA, James Eldon Wilson, Montgomery, AL, Peter Arth, Jr., Sacramento, CA, Anthony M. Marquez, Denver, CO, Richard Bellack, Alan Gantzhorn, Sr., Atlanta, GA, David J. Heinemann, Topeka, KS, William L. Willis, Austin, TX, John A. Garner, J. Bradford Ramsay, Washington, DC, Oakley W. Melton, Jr., Montgomery, AL, Edward W. O'Neill, Robert Vandiver, Michael J. Bowers, Atlanta, GA, Thomas K. Bond, Atlanta, GA, Eva Powers, Wichita, KS, Deborah T. Eversole, Frankfort, KY (on the brief), for State Commission parties.
2
Ward W. Wueste, Jr., Stamford, CT, Thomas B. Weaver, St. Louis, MO, Mark L. Evans, Washington, DC, Geoffrey M. Klineberg, Washington, DC, Laurence H. Tribe, Cambridge, MA, James R. Young, Michael E. Glover, Arlington, VA, Liam S. Coonan, San Antonio, TX, Martin E. Grambow, Washington, DC, Michael J. Zpevak, St. Louis, MO, James W. Erwin, St. Louis, MO, John H. Harwood II, Washington, DC, Mark D. Roelig, Robert B. McKenna, Denver, CO, William B. Barfield, Atlanta, GA, M. Edward Whelan, Los Angeles, CA, Jordan B. Cherrick, St. Louis, MO, Michael K. Kellogg, Howard A. Shelanski, Berkeley, CA, Jonathan S. Massey, Washington, DC, Edward E. Young, III, James D. Ellis, Los Angeles, CA, Robert M. Lynch, San Antonio, TX, Durward D. Dupre, St. Louis, MO, Stephen B. Higgins, St. Louis, MO, William T. Lake, Washington, DC, Jonathan J. Fankel, Dan Poole, Walter H. Alford, Atlanta, GA, M. Robert Sutherland, Atlanta, GA, Paul T. Cappuccio, Washington, DC, Steven G. Bradbury, Washington, DC, Patrick F. Philbin, Lance Liebman, New York City, Richard W. Odgers, San Francisco, CA, Marlin E. Ard, San Francisco, CA, John W. Bogy, San Francisco, CA, Margaret E. Garber, Washington, DC (on the brief), for petitioners Regional Bell Companies and GTE.
3
David J. Newburger (on the brief), St. Louis, MO, for Consumer Interest Intervenors.
4
Saul Fisher, New York City, Joseph Di Bella, Earle H. O'Donnell, Donna M. Attanasio, Noel S. Symons, Washington, DC (on the brief), for Petitioners NYNEX Telephone Companies.
5
Mark R. Kravitz, New Haven, CT, Jeffrey R. Babbin, New Haven, CT, Daniel J. Klau, Hartford, CT, Robert A. Mazer, Washington, DC, Albert Shuldiner, Washington, DC, Jerry W. Amos, Greensboro, NC, James H. Jeffries IV, Greensboro, NC, Diane Smith, Washington, DC, Carolyn C. Hill, Washington, DC, Donn T. Wonnell, Vancouver, WA, Douglas E. Hart, Cincinnati, OH, Jack B. Harrison, Cincinnati, OH, Thomas E. Taylor, George Petrutsas, Paul J. Feldman, Freehold, NJ, M. John Bowen, Jr., Columbia, SC, Margaret M. Fox, Columbia, SC, Madelyn M. DeMatteo, New Haven, CT, Alfred J. Brunetti, New Haven, CT (on the brief), for Southern New England Telephone Company; Aliant Communications Company; ALLTEL Telephone Services Corp.; Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company; Concord Telephone Company; North State Telephone Company; Pacific Telecom, Inc.; Rock Hill Telephone Company; Roseville Telephone Company.
6
Gary M. Epstein, Washington, DC, James H. Barker, Washington, DC, David Cosson, Lakewood, CO, L. Marie Guillory, Margot Smiley Humphrey, Washington, DC, Mary McDermott, Keith Townsend, Atlanta, GA, Lisa M. Zaina, Washington, DC (on the brief) for intervenor U.S. Telephone Association and Rural Telephone Coalition.
7
Benjamin H. Dickens, Jr., Washington, DC, Gerard J. Duffy, Patterson, NY (on the brief), for intervenor Western Alliance.
8
Suzi Ray McClellan, Rick Guzman, Austin, TX (on the brief), for intervenor Texas Office of Public Utility.
9
John Windhausen, Jr. (on the brief), Silver Spring, MD, for intervenor Competition Policy Institute.
10
Glenn B. Manishin, Washington, DC, Christy C. Kunin, Washington, DC, Martha S. Hogerty, Elise P.W. Kiely, Washington, DC, Michael F. Dandino, Kansas City, MO, Philip F. McClellan, Craig S. Lambeth, Harrisburg, PA (on the brief), for intervenor Consumer Federation of America and National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates.
11
David A. Gross, Ernest A. Young, Michael F. Altschul, Leonard J. Kennedy, Michael D. Hays, Laura H. Phillips, Washington, DC (on the brief), for intervenor CMRS Providers.
12
Christopher C. Cinnamon, Lansing, MI, Eric E. Breisach, Kalamazoo, MI, James H. Geary, Kalamazoo, MI (on the brief), for intervenor Small Cable Business Association.
13
Joel I. Klein, Catherine G. O'Sullivan, William E. Kennard, Nancy Garrison, John E. Ingle, Laurence N. Bourne and David G. Ellen, Washington, DC, James M. Carr, Susan L. Fox, Waukesha, WI, K. Michele Walters and Nancy L. Kiefer, Washington, DC (on the brief), for respondents.
14
Mark C. Rosenblum and Roy E. Hoffinger, Basking Ridge, NJ, Robert H. Bork, Washington, DC, David W. Carpenter, Chicago, IL, Peter D. Keisler and Bruce J. Ennis, Jr., Washington, DC, Richard J. Metzger, Arlington, VA, Emily M. Williams, Thomas F. O'Neil III, Elmhurst, IL, Anthony C. Epstein, Donald V. Verrilli, Jr., Mark D. Schneider, , Dana Frix, James S. Blaszak, Janine F. Goodman, Curtis T. White and Myrna Peralta, Washington, DC, Edward Hayes, Jr., Charles H. Helein, Robert M. McDowell and Harisha J. Bastiampillai, McLean, VA, Philip V. Permut, Brad Mutschelknaus, Edward A. Yorkgitis, Leonard J. Kennedy, Michael D. Hays and Laura H. Phillips, Washington, DC, Genevieve Morelli, Alexandria, VA, Werner K. Hartenberger, J.G. Harrington and Thomas K. Crowe, Washington, DC, Michael B. Adams, Jr., Arlington, VA, James Jackson, Russell M. Blau, Washington, DC, Martin J. Toft, St. Louis, MO, Albert H. Kramer, Robert F. Aldrich, Cindy Z. Schonhaut, Mary C. Albert, Andrew D. Lipman, Daniel L. Brenner and Neal M. Goldberg, Washington, DC, David L. Nicoll, Daniel M. Waggoner, Seattle, WA, Leon M. Kestenbaum, Jay C. Keithley, H. Richard Juhnke, Howard J. Symons and Sara F. Seidman, Washington, DC, Alaine Miller, Columbus, OH, R. Bruce Easter, Seattle, WA, Charles C. Hunter, Catherine M. Hannon, J. Manning Lee, Staten Island, NY, Raymond G. Bender, Jr., Washington, DC, Roy L. Morris, Cambridge, OH, Louis Gurman, Washington, DC, Timothy R. Graham, New York City, Robert G. Berger, Highland, IN, Joseph Sandri, Washington, DC, Richard L. Fruchterman III (on the brief), for intervenors MCI Corp.; ACC Corp.; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee; Allied Communications Group; Cable & Wireless; America's Carriers Telecommunications Association; Comcast Corp.; Competitive Telecommunications Association; Cox communications, Inc.; EXCEL Telecommunications, Inc.; GCI; GST Telecom, Inc.; ICG Telecom Group, Inc.; KMC Telecom, Inc.; MFS Communications, Inc.; National Cable Television Association, Inc.; Nextlink Communications, LLC; Sprint Corporation; Telecommunications Resellers Association; Teleport Communications, Inc.; US One Communications; Western Wireless Corporation; Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.; Winstar Communications, Inc.; Worldcom, Inc.
15
Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
16
HANSEN, Circuit Judge.
17
When Alexander Graham Bell, after spilling sulfuric acid on himself, first transmitted the words, "Mr. Watson, come here; I want you," across a rudimentary phone line in 1876, 1 he could not have possibly imagined that his invention would explode into the current technologically-advanced, multi-billion dollar telecommunications industry. Nor could he have foreseen the amount of legislation, regulation, and litigation that his invention would generate.
I. Background
18
One hundred twenty years after Bell's discovery, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 2 (the Act), which was designed, in part, to erode the monopolistic nature of the local telephone service industry by obligating the current providers of local phone service (known as "incumbent local exchange carriers" or "incumbent LECs") to facilitate the entry of competing companies into local telephone service markets across the country. Specifically, the Act forces an incumbent LEC (1) to permit a requesting new entrant in the incumbent LEC's local market to interconnect with the incumbent LEC's existing local network and thereby use the incumbent LEC's network to compete with the incumbent LEC in providing telephone services (interconnection); (2) to provide its competing telecommunications carriers with access to individual elements of the incumbent LEC's own network on an unbundled basis (unbundled access); and (3) to sell to its competing telecommunications carriers, at wholesale rates, any telecommunications service that the incumbent LEC provides to its customers at retail rates, in order to allow the competing carriers to resell the services (resale). 3 47 U.S.C.A. § 251 (c)(2)-(4) (West Supp.1997). 4 A company seeking to enter the local telephone service market may request an incumbent LEC to provide it with any one or any combination of these three services. Through these three duties, and the Act in general, Congress sought "to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-104, purpose statement, 110 Stat. 56 , 56 (1996).
19
The Act also establishes a system of negotiations and arbitrations in order to facilitate voluntary agreements between incumbent LECs and competing carriers to implement the Act's substantive requirements. When a competing carrier asks an incumbent LEC to provide interconnection, unbundled access, or resale, both the incumbent LEC and the competing carrier have a duty to negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of an agreement that accomplishes the Act's goals. 47 U.S.C.A. §§ 251 (c)(1), 252(a)(1). If the parties fail to reach an agreement through voluntary negotiation, either party may petition the respective state utility commission to arbitrate and resolve any open issues. Id. § 252(b). The final agreement, whether accomplished through negotiation or arbitration, must be approved by the state commission. Id. § 252(e)(1).
20
Several sections of the Act also direct the FCC to participate in the Act's implementation. See, e.g., id. §§ 251(b)(2), (d)(1), (e), 252(e)(5). On August 8, 1996, the FCC issued its First Report and Order. 5 This document contains the Agency's findings and rules 6 pertaining to the local competition provisions of the Act.
21
Soon after the FCC released its First Report and Order, many petitioners, consisting largely of incumbent LECs and state utility commissions from across the country, filed motions to stay the First Report and Order in whole or in part. Although most of the petitioners requested the court to stay the entire First Report and Order, their specific attacks focused primarily on the FCC's rules regarding the prices that the incumbent LECs could charge their new competitors for interconnection, unbundled access, and resale, as well as on the rules regarding the prices for the transport and termination of local telecommunications traffic. 7 The petitioners argued that the FCC exceeded its jurisdiction in establishing prices for what is essentially local intrastate telecommunications service and that the pricing rules violate the terms of the Act. After the cases were consolidated in this circuit, we decided to stay temporarily, pending our final review, the operation and effect of the pricing provisions and the "pick and choose" rule found in the First Report and Order. Iowa Utilities Bd. v. FCC, 109 F.3d 418 (8th Cir.), motion to vacate stay denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 429 , 136 L.Ed.2d 328 (1996); see id. at 423 (explaining "pick and choose" rule in greater detail).
22
In their main briefs and oral arguments, the petitioners now renew and refine their attacks against the Agency's pricing rules, and they also widen the scope of their challenge to the First Report and Order and assail additional FCC rules, particularly the agency's non-price regulations pertaining to the incumbent LECs' unbundling obligations. Our review of the extensive arguments in this case has confirmed our initial belief that the FCC exceeded its jurisdiction in promulgating the pricing rules regarding local telephone service. We also remain convinced that the FCC's "pick and choose" rule would frustrate the Act's design to make privately negotiated agreements the preferred route to local telephone competition. Our conclusions regarding the additional challenged policies and rules in the FCC's First Report and Order are contained throughout the remainder of this opinion.II. Analysis
23
United States Courts of Appeals have been granted exclusive statutory jurisdiction to review the FCC's final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2342 (1) (1994) and 47 U.S.C. § 402 (a) (1994). We must defer to administrative agency interpretations only if they are consistent with the plain meaning of a statute or are reasonable constructions of ambiguous statutes. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-45 , 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781-83 , 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Thus, we are empowered to overturn an agency interpretation when the interpretation conflicts with the plain meaning of a statute, see id. at 842-43 , 104 S.Ct. at 2781-83 , when the interpretation is an unreasonable construction of an ambiguous statute, see id. at 844-45 , 104 S.Ct. at 2782-83 , or when an agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously in adopting its interpretation. See 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1994); Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844 , 104 S.Ct. at 2782 . In this case, we emphasize at the beginning that our review does not encompass any determination regarding the wisdom or prudence of the policies Congress set forth in the Act, those considerations being the Constitutionally-assigned prerogatives of the Legislative Branch of our national government.
A. The FCC's Pricing Rules
24
All of the petitioners vehemently challenge the FCC's pricing rules. Their primary target is the FCC's mandate that state commissions employ the "total element long-run incremental cost" (TELRIC) method to calculate the costs that an incumbent LEC incurs in making its facilities available to competitors. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.503 , 51.505 (1996). After applying the TELRIC method and arriving at a cost figure, the state commissions, according to the FCC's rules, must then determine the price that an incumbent LEC may charge its competitors, based on the TELRIC-driven cost figure. 8 The petitioners also challenge the FCC's proxy rates, which, under the provisions of the First Report and Order, are to be used by the state commissions if they do not use the TELRIC method to calculate costs. See id. §§ 51.503(b)(2), 51.513, 51.705(a)(2), 51.707. The incumbent LECs assert that these proxy rates also do not accurately reflect their costs and are artificially low. The petitioners also challenge several other FCC regulations pertaining to the prices that the incumbent LECs are permitted to charge for fulfilling their new duties under the Act. See id. §§ 51.601-51.611, 51.701-51.717.
25
The petitioners' first line of attack against the FCC's pricing rules is their claim that the FCC has no jurisdiction to promulgate these rules. They argue that the Act plainly directs state commissions, not the FCC, to set the prices that an incumbent LEC may charge an incoming competitor for interconnection, unbundled access, and resale, and also to determine the prices for the transport and termination of calls, when the state commissions conduct arbitrations under the Act. 9 The petitioners also assert that section 2(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 152 (b) (1994), denies the FCC jurisdiction to determine these rates because the rates involve local intrastate communications service. The FCC and its supporting intervenors, however, contend that the Act clearly grants the FCC the power to issue pricing rules regarding local telephone service and that section 2(b) does not prevent the Commission from having jurisdiction to issue the pricing rules at issue here. They do not claim that the FCC's pricing authority is exclusive; instead, they argue that the Act establishes shared or parallel jurisdiction between the states and the FCC under which the FCC is to issue general rules governing the rate-making procedures, while the state commissions are left to establish the actual prices by applying the FCC's mandates. After carefully reading the language of the Act and fully considering and reviewing all of the arguments, we conclude that the FCC exceeded its jurisdiction in promulgating the pricing rules.
1. The Plain Language of Sections 251
26
and 252
27
The petitioners point to the language contained in subsections 252(c)(2) and 252(d) to support their claim that the Act directly grants the state commissions the authority to determine the rates involved in implementing the local competition provisions of the Act. Indeed, subsection 252(c)(2) requires a state commission to "establish any rates for interconnection, services, or network elements according to subsection (d) of this section." Meanwhile, subsection 252(d), entitled "Pricing standards," lists the requirements that the state commissions must meet in making their determinations of the appropriate rates for interconnection, unbundled access, resale, and transport and termination of traffic. 47 U.S.C.A. § 252 (d)(1)-(3). These statutory provisions undeniably authorize the state commissions to determine the prices an incumbent LEC may charge for fulfilling its duties under the Act.
28
The FCC and its supporters do not contest the fact that state commissions have the responsibility to set prices under the Act. Instead, they claim that subsection 251(d)(1) gives the FCC parallel authority to issue regulations governing the rate-making methods by which state commissions establish the prices that incumbent LECs may charge their new competitors for connecting with and piggy-backing on the LECs' networks. They claim that subsection 252(c)(1) requires the state commissions to follow these FCC mandates when they determine the actual prices. The FCC also believes that several general rulemaking provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, namely subsections 154(i), 201(b), and 303(r), provide it with additional authority to promulgate its pricing rules. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 154 (i), 201(b), 303(r) (1994).
29
Despite the FCC's contentions, we are not convinced that these provisions supply the FCC with the authority to issue regulations governing the pricing of the local intrastate telecommunication services that the incumbent LECs are now legally obligated to provide to their new competitors. Subsection 251(d)(1) provides that "[w]ithin 6 months after February 8, 1996, the Commission shall complete all actions necessary to establish regulations to implement the requirements of this section." 47 U.S.C.A. § 251 (d)(1). The FCC believes this provision supplies the Agency with overarching plenary authority to regulate all aspects of section 251 and reasons that because subsection 251(c) requires rates for interconnection, unbundled access, and collocation to be "just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory," id. § 251(c)(2)(d), (c)(3), (c)(6), the FCC has the power to regulate these rates and any other rates mentioned in section 251. We are not persuaded by the FCC's interpretation. We believe that subsection 251(d)(1) operates primarily as a time constraint, directing the Commission to complete expeditiously its rulemaking regarding only the areas in section 251 where Congress expressly called for the FCC's involvement 10 . Nowhere in section 251 is the FCC authorized specifically to issue rules governing the rates for interconnection, unbundled access, and resale, and the transport and termination of telecommunications traffic.
30
The Commission's reliance on general rulemaking provisions that predate the Telecommunications Act of 1996 also fares no better. While subsection 201(b) does grant the FCC jurisdiction over charges regarding communications services, those services are expressly limited to interstate or foreign communications services by subsection 201(a). See 47 U.S.C. § 201 . Consequently, subsection 201(b) does not provide the Commission with the authority to regulate the rates of local intrastate phone service and neither do subsections 154(i) or 303(r). Both of these subsections merely supply the FCC with ancillary authority to issue regulations that may be necessary to fulfill its primary directives contained elsewhere in the statute. Neither subsection confers additional substantive authority on the FCC. See id. §§ 154(i), 303(r); see also California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 , 1241 n. 35 (9th Cir.1990) (explaining that Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, in which section 154(i) is contained, confers only ancillary authority to the FCC). Thus, we conclude that none of the statutory provisions relied on by the FCC supply it with jurisdiction over the pricing of local telephone service. 11
31
The absence of any direct FCC pricing authority over local telephone service is fatal to the Agency's theory that the Act requires the state commissions to share such local pricing authority with the FCC. While subsection 252(c)(1) does require the state commissions to ensure that their resolutions of arbitrated disputes comply with both section 251 and with the FCC's regulations made pursuant to section 251, as explained above, no provision in section 251 authorizes the FCC to regulate the rates of local phone service. 12 Moreover, the absence of any reference whatsoever to the FCC in the sections of the Act that directly authorize the state commissions to establish prices confirms to us that Congress did not envision the FCC's participation in determining the prices that the incumbent LECs will be able to charge for opening their networks to new entrants. Subsection 252(c)(2) commands state commissions to "establish any rates for interconnection, services, or network elements" and it requires them to follow only the standards in subsection (d). 47 U.S.C.A. § 252 (c)(2). In turn, subsection 252(d) refers exclusively to the determinations by state commissions of the just and reasonable rates, and it provides statutory standards for the state commissions to follow when setting the rates, thus negating any need for additional FCC-mandated rate-making standards or guidelines. 13 See id. § 252(d).
32
Additionally, the FCC's reference to the Cable Act 14 as an example of a system of parallel federal and state jurisdiction over an industry's rates only bolsters our view that no such shared scheme regarding the power to set prices was intended by the Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In sharp contrast to the Telecommunications Act, several provisions of the Cable Act explicitly grant the Commission the authority to regulate the rates of cable companies and explicitly require state authorities to follow the Commission's rate-making rules. See 47 U.S.C. § 543 (a)(2)-(3), (b) (1994). The Cable Act simply and forcefully demonstrates that the Congress is capable of clearly expressing its desire to grant the FCC authority over local rates when it wishes to do so. The Telecommunications Act contains no such articulation with respect to the local competition provisions. Consequently, we conclude that the Act plainly grants the state commissions, not the FCC, the authority to determine the rates involved in the implementation of the local competition provisions of the Act. 15
33
2. Section 2(b) and the Impossibility Exception
34
Any ambiguity regarding the FCC's vacuum of authority over local telecommunications pricing under the Act is resolved by the operation of section 2(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 152 (b). Section 2(b) provides that "nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply or to give the [FCC] jurisdiction with respect to ... charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communications service." Id. We believe that the prices that incumbent local exchange carriers may charge their new competitors for interconnection, unbundled access, and resale--the services and facilities that will enable the competitors to provide competing local telecommunications service--as well as the rates for the transport and termination of telecommunication traffic qualify as "charges ... for or in connection with intrastate communications service." 16 Id. In Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 370 , 106 S.Ct. 1890, 1899 , 90 L.Ed.2d 369 (1986), the Supreme Court explained that section 2(b) "fences off" intrastate matters from FCC regulation. The FCC and its supporting intervenors attempt to slip through the fence by arguing that this case qualifies as an exception to the operation of section 2(b).
35
The Supreme Court emphasized that section 2(b) constitutes an explicit congressional denial of power to the FCC and suggested that Congress could override section 2(b)'s command only by unambiguously granting the FCC authority over intrastate telecommunications matters or by directly modifying section 2(b). Louisiana, 476 U.S. at 377 , 106 S.Ct. at 1903 . The only other gate through the 2(b) fence is the "impossibility" exception, which has evolved out of the Court's opinion in Louisiana. This quite narrow exception provides that the FCC may preempt state regulation of intrastate telecommunications matters only when (1) it is impossible to separate the interstate and intrastate components of the FCC regulation and (2) the state regulation would negate the FCC's lawful authority over interstate communication. See, e.g., id. at 375-76 n. 4, 106 S.Ct. at 1902 n. 4; California v. FCC, 39 F.3d 919, 931 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1050 , 115 S.Ct. 1427 , 131 L.Ed.2d 309 (1995); NARUC v. FCC, 880 F.2d 422 , 429 (D.C.Cir.1989). The FCC and its supporting intervenors assert that the terms of the Act supply the Commission with a direct grant of intrastate pricing authority sufficient to overcome the operation of section 2(b). Alternatively, they argue that the impossibility exception removes section 2(b) as a barrier to the FCC's pricing rules. We are not convinced by the respondents' arguments here, and we believe that the 1996 Act, when coupled with section 2(b), mandates that the states have the exclusive authority to establish the prices regarding the local competition provisions of the Act.
36
As explained earlier, the FCC argues that Congress unambiguously granted it intrastate pricing authority through the relationship between subsections 251(d)(1) (directing the Commission to establish regulations to implement the requirements of section 251 by August 8, 1996) and 251(c) (periodically mentioning that the incumbent LECs' rates must be just and reasonable). We have now rejected this interpretation as being inconsistent with the plain meaning of the Act, and we have concluded exactly the opposite--that the Act directly and straightforwardly assigns to the states the authority to set the prices regarding the local competition provisions of the Act in subsections 252(c)(2) and 252(d). Consequently, the FCC's interpretation of the Act does not demonstrate an unambiguous grant of intrastate authority to the FCC required either to jump over or pass through section 2(b)'s fence. See Louisiana, 476 U.S. at 376 -77 n. 5, 106 S.Ct. at 1903 n. 5 (explaining that section 2(b) also operates as a rule of statutory construction, commanding that nothing in the Act be construed to extend FCC jurisdiction to intrastate telecommunications).
37
Congress is fully capable of opening the gate in the 2(b) fence in order to grant the FCC intrastate rate-making authority when it wishes to do so. Once again, provisions of the Cable Act illustrate this point. One such provision reads, "The Commission shall, by regulation, ensure that the rates for the basic service tier are reasonable." 47 U.S.C. § 543 (b)(1). Moreover, section 276 of the Telecommunications Act itself directly requires the FCC to establish a compensation plan regarding both intrastate and interstate pay phone calls. 47 U.S.C.A. § 276 (b); Illinois Pub. Telecomm. Ass'n v. FCC, 117 F.3d 555, 561-62 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The FCC's roundabout construction in its effort to claim intrastate pricing authority under section 251 of the Telecommunications Act is notably strained in stark comparison to the direct grant of such authority contained in both the Cable Act and in section 276 of the Telecommunications Act, thus providing more indications that Congress intended to reserve for the states the retained authority to set the prices regarding the local competition provisions contained in section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Additionally, certain nonpricing provisions of the Telecommunications Act provide the FCC with much more direct and unambiguous grants of intrastate authority than the FCC's strained reading of subsections 251(d) and 251(c). For instance, subsection 251(b)(2) burdens LECs with "[t]he duty to provide ... number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission." 47 U.S.C.A. § 251 (b)(2) (West Supp.1997). In contrast, no provision of the Act unambiguously requires rates for the local competition provisions to comply with FCC-prescribed requirements, no provision unambiguously directs the FCC to issue such pricing regulations, and there is no straightforward and unambiguous modification of section 2(b) in the Act. 17 Consequently, section 2(b) remains a barrier to the validity of these FCC pricing rules.
38
Faced with the absence of such an unambiguous grant of intrastate pricing authority to the FCC, the Commission and its supporting intervenors resort to arguing that section 2(b) is easily overcome whenever a federal statute's terms unambiguously apply to intrastate telecommunication matters, because they believe the FCC has plenary authority to implement all such federal statutory requirements. They believe that the Louisiana decision supports their proposition that section 2(b) prevents only the FCC's ancillary jurisdiction from extending into intrastate areas, but that it does not limit the federal Commission's primary jurisdiction, which, they argue, presumably extends as far as the reach of a federal communications statute. We do not believe that section 2(b) is limited in this manner, nor do we think the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana stands for such a far-reaching proposition.
39
Although the Court's decision in Louisiana focused on whether section 220(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 itself applied to intrastate telecommunication matters, it did so only because section 220 undeniably directed the FCC to administer the depreciation calculations required by the statute. See 47 U.S.C. § 220 (b) (1994) (repeatedly referring to "the Commission"); see also Louisiana, 476 U.S. at 366-68 , 106 S.Ct. at 1897-98 . In other words, we believe that the Louisiana decision indicates that in order to qualify for the "unambiguous" exception to section 2(b), a statute must both unambiguously apply to intrastate telecommunication matters and unambiguously direct the FCC to implement its provisions. In Louisiana, section 220(b) clearly passed the second prong but failed to meet the first prong. In the present case, we have the opposite situation: the pricing provisions of sections 251 and 252 clearly apply to intrastate telecommunication service, but they do not unambiguously call for the FCC's participation in setting the rates. To the contrary, the Act specifically calls for the state commissions, not the FCC, to determine the rates for interconnection, unbundled access, resale, and transport and termination of traffic. See 47 U.S.C.A. § 252 (c)(2), (d). Consequently, we reject the FCC's contention that its rulemaking authority is coextensive with the reach of every provision of a federal statute involving telecommunications. Section 2(b) is not a limit on Congress's ability to legislate in the area of intrastate telecommunications; it is, however, a limit on the FCC's ability to regulate in the area of intrastate telecommunications. Thus, a federal statute's mere application to intrastate telecommunication matters is insufficient to confer intrastate jurisdiction upon the FCC; the statute must also directly grant the FCC such intrastate authority in order to overcome the operation of section 2(b). 18
40
The respondents' last chance to breach the section 2(b) fence lies with the "impossibility" exception to section 2(b). As mentioned above, the impossibility exception allows an FCC regulation to preempt a state regulation when it is impossible to separate the interstate and intrastate components of the asserted FCC regulation and the state regulation would negate the FCC's authority over interstate communication. See, e.g., Louisiana, 476 U.S. at 375 -76 n. 4, 106 S.Ct. at 1902 n. 4; California v. FCC, 75 F.3d 1350, 1359 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1216 , 116 S.Ct. 1841 , 134 L.Ed.2d 944 (1996); NARUC, 880 F.2d at 429.
41
We believe that this exception does not apply to the circumstances of this case and thus does not give the FCC the authority to dictate pricing regulations governing the local competition provisions of the Act. First, telecommunication rate-making traditionally has been capable of being separated into its interstate and intrastate components. In fact, other statutory provisions predating the 1996 Act require such separation to occur and command a joint board of federal and state regulators to execute the separations process. 47 U.S.C. §§ 221 (c), 410(c) (1994); see also NARUC, 880 F.2d at 425.
42
Second, and more importantly, the FCC has not demonstrated that the states' authority to establish the rates in connection with the local competition provisions of the Act would negate any valid authority the Commission has over interstate communications or impede any of its interstate regulatory goals. See California, 75 F.3d at 1359 (burden on FCC to demonstrate negation). The impossibility exception is premised on a preemption analysis, and "[t]he critical question in any pre-emption analysis is always whether Congress intended that federal regulation supersede state law." 19 Louisiana, 476 U.S. at 369 , 106 S.Ct. at 1899 . Consequently, our inquiry returns to the language of the Act. As illustrated above, the terms of the Act clearly indicate that Congress did not intend for the FCC to issue any pricing rules, let alone preempt state pricing rules regarding the local competition provisions of the Act. See 47 U.S.C.A. § 252 (c)(2), (d). Because the Act clearly grants the states the authority to set the rates for interconnection, unbundled access, resale, and transport and termination of traffic, the FCC has no valid pricing authority over these areas of new localized competition for the states to negate. "An agency may not act at all, let alone preempt state authority, in an area where Congress has explicitly denied it jurisdiction." NARUC, 880 F.2d at 428. The fact that there are specific statutory provisions that expressly indicate that the states have the authority to determine the rates for these local telecommunications services distinguishes this case from all of the cases that invoke the impossibility exception to allow the FCC to preempt state regulations. See, e.g., California v. FCC, 39 F.3d 919 (9th Cir.1994); California v. FCC, 4 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1993); Public Utility Comm'n of Texas v. FCC, 886 F.2d 1325 (D.C.Cir.1989). Because none of the courts invoking the impossibility exception had the assistance of a federal statute that specifically determined who had jurisdiction over the telecommunications area at issue, those courts had to resort to analyzing the interstate/intrastate character of the telecommunications services, as required by sections 151 and 152 of the Communications Act, in order to make such a determination. Here, however, subsections 252(c)(2) and 252(d) clearly assign jurisdiction over the rates for the local competition provisions of the Act to the state commissions, thus avoiding the need to analyze the interstate/intrastate character of these services.
43
Even a traditional analysis of the interstate/intrastate quality of the local competition provisions of the Act reveals that these functions (i.e., interconnection, unbundled access, resale, and transport and termination of traffic) are fundamentally intrastate in character; thus the FCC's traditional jurisdiction over interstate communications will not be negated by the states' regulation of the rates for these services. The Act primarily focuses on facilitating competition in local telephone service markets by imposing several new duties (interconnection, unbundled access, and resale--the local competition provisions) on incumbent local exchange carriers. 47 U.S.C.A. § 251 (c). Allowing competing telecommunications carriers to have direct access to an incumbent local exchange carrier's established network in order to enable the new carrier to provide competing general local telephone services is an intrastate activity even though the local network thus invaded is sometimes used to originate or complete interstate calls. 20 Contrary to the respondents' contentions, section 2(b) does not prevent the FCC from having jurisdiction only over matters that are purely intrastate. The Supreme Court rejected such a position in its decision in Louisiana:
44
[W]e cannot accept respondents' argument that § 152(b) does not control because the plant involved in this case is used interchangeably to provide both interstate and intrastate service, and that even if § 152(b) does reserve to the state commissions some authority over "certain aspects" of intrastate communication, it should be "confined to intrastate matters which are 'separable from and do not substantially affect' interstate communication."
45
476 U.S. at 373 , 106 S.Ct. at 1901 (citation omitted). Moreover, we reiterate that the text of section 2(b) itself indicates that the FCC does not have jurisdiction over matters "in connection with" intrastate service. 47 U.S.C. § 152 (b). Consequently, the fact that the local competition provisions of the Act may have a tangential impact on interstate services is not sufficient to overcome the operation of section 2(b) and does not alter the fundamentally intrastate nature of the Act's local competition provisions. We note that the Act's clear grant of rate-making authority to the state commissions is entirely consistent with the states' historical role in telecommunications regulation, given the intrastate quality of the local competition provisions of the Act. Because the impossibility exception does not apply in this case, section 2(b) remains a Louisiana built fence that is hog tight, horse high, and bull strong, preventing the FCC from intruding on the states' intrastate turf.
46
Having concluded that the FCC lacks jurisdiction to issue the pricing rules, we vacate the FCC's pricing rules 21 on that ground alone and choose not to review these rules on their merits.
B. The FCC's "Pick and Choose" Rule
47
The petitioners next assert that the FCC's so-called "pick and choose" rule, 47 C.F.R. § 51.809 , is an unreasonable interpretation of subsection 252(i). Subsection 252(i) provides:
48
A local exchange carrier shall make available any interconnection, service, or network element provided under an agreement approved under this section to which it is a party to any other requesting telecommunications carrier upon the same terms and conditions as those provided in the agreement.
49
47 U.S.C.A. § 252 (i). With its "pick and choose" rule, the FCC interpreted this section of the Act to allow requesting carriers to "pick and choose" among individual provisions of other interconnection agreements that have previously been negotiated between an incumbent LEC and other requesting carriers without being required to accept the terms and conditions of the agreements in their entirety. The petitioners argue that such a rule is unduly burdensome on incumbent LECs and that it will thwart negotiations because it allows a later entrant to select the favorable terms of a prior approved agreement without being bound by the corresponding tradeoffs that were made in exchange for the favorable provisions sought by the new entrant. The petitioners assert that subsection 252(i) allows requesting carriers the option to select the terms and conditions of prior agreements only as a whole, not in a piecemeal fashion.
50
Contrary to the FCC's belief that subsection 252(i) plainly mandates its approach, we think that the language of subsection 252(i) in isolation does not clearly reveal Congress's intent on this issue. 22 Consequently, we "must look to the structure and language of the statute as a whole" to determine if the FCC's interpretation of this ambiguous provision is a reasonable one. National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U.S. 407, 417 , 112 S.Ct. 1394, 1401 , 118 L.Ed.2d 52 (1992). Our analysis leads us to conclude that the FCC's rule conflicts with the Act's design to promote negotiated binding agreements.
51
The structure of the Act reveals the Congress's preference for voluntarily negotiated interconnection agreements between incumbent LECs and their competitors over arbitrated agreements. Voluntary negotiation is the first method listed under section 252, and the Act indicates that the parties may begin negotiations as soon as an entrant submits a request to an incumbent LEC. 47 U.S.C.A. § 252 (a)(1). Meanwhile, the parties' ability to request the arbitration of an agreement is confined to the period from the 135th to the 160th day after the requesting carrier submits its request to the incumbent LEC. Id. § 252(b)(1). These provisions reveal that the Act establishes a preference for incumbent LECs and requesting carriers to reach agreements independently and that the Act establishes state-run arbitrations to act as a backstop or impasse-resolving mechanism for failed negotiations.
52
The FCC's "pick and choose" rule, however, would thwart the negotiation process and preclude the attainment of binding negotiated agreements. During a negotiation, an incumbent LEC would be very reluctant to make a concession on one term in exchange for a benefit on another term when faced with the prospect that a subsequent competing carrier will be able to receive the concession without having to grant the incumbent the corresponding benefit. In this manner, the FCC's rule would discourage the give-and-take process that is essential to successful negotiations. Moreover, negotiated agreements will, in reality, not be binding, because, according to the FCC, an entrant who is an original party to an agreement may unilaterally incorporate more advantageous provisions contained in subsequent agreements negotiated by other carriers. See First Report and Order, p 1316. This result conflicts with the Act's requirement that agreements be "binding," 47 U.S.C.A. § 252 (a)(1), and is an additional impediment to subsequent negotiations, because an incumbent LEC will be even more hesitant to make concessions in subsequent negotiations when it knows that such concessions would be available to all of the competing carriers with which it previously had agreements.
53
In response to these arguments, the FCC points to the waiver provision of the "pick and choose" rule, First Report and Order, § 51.809(b), and asserts that incumbent LECs will not be so deterred from making concessions because the waiver provision prevents an entrant from adopting the provisions of a previous agreement when an incumbent LEC can persuade a state commission that such adoption would be economically burdensome or technically infeasible. We do not believe, however, that the incumbent LECs can take solace in the waiver provision. With the burden of proof placed on the incumbent LECs, receiving an actual waiver would be an uphill battle that would likely be a rare occurrence. We remain convinced that even in light of the possibility that an exemption could be granted, the incumbent LECs' ability and willingness to negotiate would be severely stifled by the FCC's "pick and choose" rule.
54
We also find little merit to the Commission's assertion that the alternative interpretation of subsection 252(i), requiring entrants to accept the terms and conditions of prior agreements in their entirety, would cause incumbent LECs to include unrelated onerous terms in their agreements in order to discourage subsequent entrants from adopting those agreements. We believe that the incumbent LECs have as much interest in avoiding the costs of prolonged negotiations or arbitrations as do the requesting carriers, which gives the incumbent LECs an incentive to negotiate initial agreements that would be acceptable to a wide range of later requesting carriers.
55
We conclude that the FCC's interpretation conflicts with the Act's design to promote negotiated agreements. Thus, we find the FCC's "pick and choose" rule to be an unreasonable construction of the Act and vacate it for the foregoing reasons.
C. Rural Exemptions-Rule 51.405
56
A few petitioners take issue with the Commission's rule that establishes additional standards that the state commissions are to follow in determining whether rural and small LECs are entitled to exemptions from or suspensions or modifications of the duties imposed on incumbent LECs generally under the Act. The Commission's rule, 47 C.F.R. § 51.405 , purports to implement subsection 251(f), which governs exemptions, suspensions, and modifications. The rule allocates the burden of proof to the small or rural LECs seeking exemptions or modifications and embellishes the standard of proof to require the small or rural LECs to demonstrate that their compliance with the Act's local competition provisions would cause them to suffer an "undue economic burden beyond the economic burden that is typically associated with efficient competitive entry." 47 C.F.R. § 51.405 (c). The petitioners attack the FCC's rule on both jurisdictional and substantive grounds. After carefully reviewing all of the pertinent arguments, we conclude that the FCC exceeded its jurisdiction in promulgating rule 51.405.
57
The plain meaning of subsections 251(f)(1) (governing exemptions) and 251(f)(2) (governing suspensions and modifications) indicates that the state commissions have the exclusive authority to make these determinations, and nothing in either of these provisions, or in the Act generally, provides the FCC with the power to prescribe the governing standards for such determinations. Subsection 251(f)(1)(B) explicitly provides, "The State commission shall conduct an inquiry for the purpose of determining whether to terminate the exemption under subparagraph (A)." Repeated and exclusive references to such state commission determinations are contained throughout subsection 251(f). In contrast, there is no indication that state commissions must follow FCC standards in conducting these inquiries. The only reference to the Commission is contained in subsection 251(f)(1)(B) which provides, "Upon termination of the exemption, a State commission shall establish an implementation schedule for compliance with the request that is consistent in time and manner with Commission regulations." The FCC asserts that this sentence supplies it with the authority to promulgate rule 51.405. By its very terms, however, this sentence requires the implementation schedule to comply with the FCC's regulations only after a state commission has independently determined to terminate a rural LEC's exemption. This reference does not empower the FCC to establish standards that states must follow in determining in the first place whether an exemption should continue or end; it merely indicates that after a state commission decides to terminate an exemption, the rural carrier must comply with the regulations that the Commission is specifically authorized to promulgate under section 251. 23
58
The FCC responds by once again arguing that subsection 251(d)(1) of the Act authorizes it to promulgate regulations implementing all of the requirements contained in section 251 generally and that its broad rulemaking powers contained in subsections 154(i), 201(b), and 303(r) also provide it with the authority to issue rule 51.405. For the same reasons that we previously found these provisions to be insufficient to sup
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.