WASHINGTON-Certain parts of the Federal Communications Commission’s interconnection and local exchange rules dealing with negotiations between local exchange carriers and commercial mobile radio service operators will not be included in the current stay that prevents FCC pricing restrictions from being implemented.
Responding to an emergency motion to modify the stay filed by AirTouch Communications Inc. Oct. 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit lifted its hold on mutual termination language and the renegotiation of existing non-reciprocal contracts between CMRS carriers and LECs.
A three-judge panel plans to hear oral arguments on the pricing restrictions next January.
“LECs are again obligated to provide CMRS carriers with reciprocal compensation for transport and termination of local traffic and a fresh look at non-reciprocal agreements between LECs and CMRS providers established prior to Aug. 8,” said the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, following the court’s action. “Furthermore, the modification of the stay reinstates the MTA (major trading area) local calling area as the determinant boundary for the origination and termination of local traffic between a LEC and a CMRS provider.”
Jay Kitchen, president of the Personal Communications Industry Association, added, “The court has reaffirmed the rights of wireless providers to negotiate meaningful agreements. We are particularly pleased that personal communications services carriers have won explicit support for MTA-based market areas and paging carriers have been relieved of the obligation to pay for the privilege of terminating other carriers’ traffic. Both are critical items which will have an immediate impact on our members.”
PCIA and CTIA had submitted comments to the court in support of AirTouch’s plea for relief, as did the Rural Telecommunications Group; Paging Network Inc.; and a group including Comcast Corp., Vanguard Cellular Systems Inc. and Western Wireless Corp. In its comments, PCIA, CTIA, PageNet and the RTG pointed to authority given by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to the FCC over reciprocal compensation, which is not a pricing issue. PCIA and the rural coalition also agreed with AirTouch that the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act allowed the commission to regulate LEC-CMRS interconnection. CTIA chose not to address AirTouch’s LEC-CMRS interconnection argument, preferring that the court rule on all parties’ briefs during the hearing process.
The joint comments of Comcast, et al, went further by detailing why the FCC has jurisdiction over these relief issues, saying, “After receiving substantial evidence that LECs refused to provide reciprocal compensation to CMRS providers, the commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding in 1995 to reform existing CMRS interconnection arrangements. Following initiating of the 1996 act, the FCC received additional evidence that LECs used their monopoly positions to impose interconnection charges of up to 8,000 percent [of] their costs, merged its CMRS interconnection reform proceeding into the act and adopted new CMRS interconnection rules, including the non-pricing rules.”
Comcast added it has paid Bell Atlantic nearly 2.5 cents per minute for interconnection for the last 10 years, but has received nothing for calls Bell Atlantic terminates on its network. Vanguard has paid similar fees in Bell Atlantic territory and as much as 5 cents per minute in other markets.
On the losing side, Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. argued that breaking out LEC-CMRS rules constitutes a “piecemeal implementation of the FCC’s rules, all of which are unlawful … to allow the FCC’s rules to go into effect for CMRS carriers while the rules are stayed as to the wireline carriers would create a dual system of regulation that not even the FCC desires.” U S West Inc. wrote, “The major weakness in the AirTouch position is that it is based on an inaccurate characterization of the FCC’s interconnection order … U S West and all other LECs are bound by statute to negotiate interconnection agreements which include reciprocal compensation provisions. U S West is currently doing so. In fact, effective Oct. 15, U S West has in place amendments to its existing interconnection agreements with three CMRS carriers calling for the payment by U S West of reciprocal compensation.”
And, finally, a coalition of Bell Atlantic Corp., BellSouth Corp., Pacific Telesis Group and SBC Communications Inc. wrote, “The commission’s rules on CMRS interconnection are … subject to the same jurisdictional flaw as its other pricing rules and were appropriately stayed.”
