Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. California Public Utilities Commission

March 4, 2010

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, DBA AT&T CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION; MICHAEL R. PEEVEY; DIAN M. GRUENEICH; JOHN BOHN; RACHELLE CHONG; TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, DBA AT&T CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION; MICHAEL R. PEEVEY; DIAN M. GRUENEICH; JOHN BOHN; RACHELLE CHONG; TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON, DEFENDANTS, AND CBEYOND COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:07-CV-01797-SI.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bea, Circuit Judge

FOR PUBLICATION

Argued and Submitted October 6, 2009 -- San Francisco, California

Before: Mary M. Schroeder, A. Wallace Tashima and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

This case involves the balance the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the Act") strikes between providing newer competitors access to previously monopolistic telecommunications markets, on the one hand, and encouraging and protecting infrastructure investments of older, incumbent telecommunications providers on the other. We must interpret two provisions of the Act that impose requirements on older, incumbent local exchange carriers ("incumbent LECs")-like appellant AT&T-to lease certain components of their existing infrastructure to rival newer, competitive carriers ("competitive LECs")-like intervenor Cbeyond.

First, we must determine whether 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2) requires an incumbent LEC to lease its "entrance facilities" (wires that connect rival telephone systems) to a competitive LEC at regulated rates when the competitor wishes to use the "entrance facility" to permit its own customers to reach customers of the incumbent LEC.

Second, we must determine whether 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(e)(2)(ii)(B) (the "DS1 Cap Rule"), which limits to ten the number of low-capacity DS1 telephone lines an incumbent LEC must lease to a competitive LEC at regulated (low) rates along certain routes, is a limitation which also applies to any route, regardless whether the competitive LEC is "impaired" as to the alternative to such low-capacity lines: the competitive LEC's own higher-capacity DS3 lines.

Properly to understand the terms used and the regulatory area into which we are about, some background would help.

BACKGROUND

A. The Telecommunications Act of 1996

Prior to 1996, local telephone service generally was provided by a local monopolist who offered services at prices regulated and imposed by a variety of governmental agencies. Such monopolist providers are commonly referred to as "incumbent local exchange carriers" or "incumbent LECs." Congress enacted the Act to deregulate the telecommunications market. See generally Verizon Comms. Inc. v. FCC, 535 U.S. 467, 475-76 (2002). But, to facilitate the entry of new participants into these local markets, the Act imposes on incumbent LECs two duties relevant in this case.

Interconnection Duty at Regulated Rates

First, the Act imposes a duty on incumbent LECs to permit "interconnection." Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2),*fn1 incum-bent LECs must allow the competitive LEC to link its network to that of the incumbent LEC, so that customers of the competitive LEC may place calls to customers of the incumbent LEC. Without the ability to link its network to that of the incumbent LEC, the competitive LEC would have little prospect of selling its telephone services, to say nothing of competing for the customers of the incumbent LEC. A local telephone service is of little use if it cannot connect to other local telephone users.

Lease of Network Parts at Regulated Rates

Second, the Act imposes a duty that incumbent LECs "un-bundle"*fn2 parts of their network. Each such part of the incumbent LEC's network is a "network element". Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3),*fn3 incumbent LECs must permit competitive LECs to lease, at regulated cost-based rates, parts of the incumbent's network, such as telephone wires, call exchanges, and routing systems. This provision promotes competition by allowing a competitive LEC to enter the telephone service market without having first to overcome capital barriers to entry, i.e., without having to construct, at high cost, every component necessary to operate a network. See Ill. Bell Tel. Co. v. Box, 548 F.3d 607, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2008) ("Box II"). For example, a competitive LEC might enter a market by providing residential telephone service in two far-flung neighborhoods. Rather than having to lay its own wire to connect the two neighborhoods, the competitive LEC can, under § 251(c)(3), piggyback on the incumbent LEC's pre-existing network at regulated, cost-based rates. In this way, a competitive LEC may more easily and less expensively begin to establish its market presence.

However, before an incumbent LEC is obligated to lease network elements on an unbundled basis, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") must find that a refusal to deal would "impair" competition. Section 251(d)(2) requires the FCC to determine which network elements ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.