that arbitration the commission ruled that traffic that originates and terminates in a local calling area to any type of business internet service provider though it didn't have to to make calls to internet service providers subjected to fifty one b files requirements and in doing so the commission expressly cited the federal communication commission in its ruling in  ninety sometimes called the deck require rolling sometimes called the i s p order that said state commissions in arbitrations have the authority to elect to subject i dispute traffic to two fifty one b five this is a ruling that nevada val in the course of the arbitration told the commission was coming and bill that as definitive this was going to be the definitive ruling it came out it gave the commissions an open door the issue the commission couldn't even reach the issue according to the district court the parties and their arbitration including because they did not anticipate or especially state when a new ruling comes out around pastry fifty one so that's going to treat the callers to discrete components the communications portion and the information access portion and looking at the communication portion this is where they apply their analysis  i can only speak from my impression i can speak for the commission certainly but i believe the record of the arbitration proceeding and as reflected in the paragraph in your honor cited in about a massive volume of minutes and in real time have to be particular i speak customers but you just take a packet of minutes and look at them you cannot tell unless you know something about the customers there's nothing about the call it  so the result of the district courts decision that the district court became the only federal court in the country to reverse a state commission arbitration decision requiring specifical compensation a merits leaving no compensation structure in place so pack west is obligated to terminate calls from the radicals customers for free unless something is done about it back west cated and said really you haven't justified why you should treat this as interstate for compensation purposes and in fact an f c c order called a local competition order expressly says to stay commissions you can decide what so and used to specialize regulatory expertise as the arbiter of environment in nevada truck secularly reasons why this traffic should not be treated differently from other traffic it is functionally identical so compensation that it should have been receiving all this time is something a part and outside of to fifty one fifty five that's clear from paragraph twenty six of the i ask p order where the f c c says that the state commission may conclude that reciprocal compensation is appropriate in instances not addressed in two fifty one before i that same point is made by the d c circuit in of that atlanta hayes on page two and also page three issue presented for arbitration is whether i s p traffic is entitle to reciprocal compensation pursuant to two fifty one b five when it says pursuant to fifty one the five that goal it's actually two fifty one the five in red in conjunction with the f c c regulations which limit to fifty one the five to soley local traffic so when we say to fifty one be five by definition we're talking about only local traffic because before this whole dispute arose over i s p traffic the f c c had at least made one thing clear which is to fifty one b five should be read as applying al absolutely not that's one thing that everybody has taken for granted that to fifty one the five applies only to local traffic and then you get this huge dispute over what's local traffic and what's not local traffic  of what you were doing it stems from a trilogy of cases trying to remind me to and the federal power commission versus texaco and with the courts notice let me just walk through quickly and i'll get is if you're going to have an agency exercise discretion given to either by congress or by the federal commission or whatever source we're going to so i think looking at the pursuant to two fifty one b five and that that in itself needs to be explained if it's if they were judy kading something other than two fifty one b five s pac west asserts they need to tell us that and that was the well i think it is possible that they can explain how the arbor triple issue migrated it is possible to explain that but we don't have that explanation yet and we need to see that explanation before we can make a fair assessment over whether it to be difficult in light of seventy but they may decide to revise paragraph seventy all district court did was remain and for a better explanation especially read the analysis tell us what how you got from the we the courts can then evaluate that under the proper standard review now this isn't the first time something like this has happened in one of the cases cited by pak west of the bell south versus compensation which is something totally different than the staff's analysis so it's sort of in a state of conflict confusion and we just don't have enough here now to have a clear read of what exactly the exercise of have any change or revision in or migration of the question that's presented by the petition or arbitration but in that case the commission made an ex determination that the issue presented for arbitration had changed and that's what's missing here we may or may not have a change in the question for arbitration but we don't have an explanation by c may have had in mind or may say if and it pursuant to the district court order but we just don't know which of those is the most likely in the matter if you see sitting there waiting to tell us knapp's district court case that's really distinguished from global now says that in interpretating interconnection agreement you have to look at the state law that's not a surprising proposition of law if you're interpretating an agreement you need to look to the governing state law nothing holds that a state commission must consider the entitlement of traffic to reciprocal compensation under state law the f c c and d c circuit say that you can do that that's a possibility you may want to but implicit in that is a state commission can say we're not even going there we're just going to prove interconnection agreement with was typical compensation provisions governing local traffic and not even touch the i s p question that's what happened in a lot of interconnection agreements during the ninety's and that's what gave rise to all of these cases you had interconnection agreements approved by state nice but they didn't directly address were simple compensation for i s p traffic there's no requirement whatsoever in either the f c c i s p order reciprocal compensation face if anything that shows that even the state commissions many consider reciprocal compensation pri traffic they have to abide with two fifty two and that's why in the california case the pacific now carries a large portion of the california p c s orders were thrown out and sent back for reconsideration because there was not compliance with two can do second key point i cannot get lost there is no requirement for any state commission established and crew and i speak all truly is local the f question to require sitcom then i think and it's rationale it articulated why these calls and nevada originate and terminate in local calling area to whatever kind of subscriber i espied pizza parlor travel agency should be treated the same they should be treated under the look the local rate structure and part of the rate structure is a circle compensation they did not attempt to fill the void that remains to this day about what is truly local they elected to treat it like other calls based on their determination of what happens when a call originates and terminates a local calling area decision and interestingly the arbitration decision to not have a one sentence well the f c c has said it's not required under two fifty one now even the arbitrator who ruled their way went on for page after page well what should we do with this traffic is it local or not so any migration here is really i'm just rhetoric the issue before the commission was could it treat this traffic as local it said it could and articulate rationales for doing so