Title: Cincinnati SMSA L.P. v. Pub. Util. Comm.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cincinnati SMSA L.P. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 98 Ohio St.3d 282, 2002-Ohio-7235.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A.K.A. AMERITECH, APPELLANT, v. 
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Cincinnati SMSA L.P. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 98 Ohio St.3d 282, 2002-
Ohio-7235.] 
Public Utilities Commission — Wholesale cellular telephone service resales — 
Ohio law not preempted by Section 332(c)(3)(A), Title 47, U.S.Code. 
(No. 2001-1158 — Submitted November 13, 2002 — Decided December 30, 
2002.) 
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, No. 93-1758-RC-CSS. 
__________________ 
FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., J. 
{¶1} 
This is an appeal as of right.  The appellant is Cincinnati SMSA 
Limited Partnership (“Ameritech”).  The appellees are the Public Utilities 
Commission of Ohio (“commission”) and intervenor Westside Cellular, Inc. 
(“Cellnet”). 
{¶2} 
Cellnet is a cellular telephone service reseller.  As such, it 
purchases cellular service on a wholesale basis, rebrands the service, and markets 
it to the general public on a retail basis.  On October 18, 1993, Cellnet filed a 
complaint in commission case No. 93-1758-RC-CSS against wholesale cellular 
service providers, including Ameritech.  The complaint asserted that Ameritech 
discriminated against Cellnet.  In its January 18, 2001 opinion and order (“the 
order”), the commission generally agreed with Cellnet’s assertions and held that 
Ameritech, in violation of commission orders and regulations and Ohio statutes, 
unlawfully discriminated against Cellnet. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
This appeal has significant similarities to the appeal in New Par v. 
Pub. Util. Comm., 98 Ohio St.3d 277, 2002-Ohio-7245, 781 N.E.2d 1008 (the 
New Par appeal).  While the appellant here is Ameritech, the appellants in the 
New Par appeal were multiple entities.  However, the appellants in both appeals 
were wholesale cellular telephone service providers and were respondents in the 
Cellnet complaint that resulted in the order that is the subject of both appeals. 
{¶4} 
In this appeal, Ameritech argues that the order is unlawful because 
(1) the commission’s jurisdiction was preempted by federal law; (2) the 
commission’s decision was not supported by evidence; (3) the commission should 
have sua sponte adjourned the evidentiary hearing and ordered Ameritech to 
produce evidence of its internal rate once it had become clear that Ameritech had 
failed to produce evidence of any internal rate; and (4) the commission based part 
of its decision on regulations that Ameritech claims are invalid because they were 
not properly promulgated. 
{¶5} 
In the New Par appeal, we considered the first, second, and fourth 
issues and disposed of them in favor of the commission, finding no reversible 
error.  As to the first issue, that of federal preemption, Ameritech in this appeal 
makes all of the arguments made by New Par.  It argues that the commission’s 
order under Ohio law was preempted by Section 332(c)(3)(A), Title 47, 
U.S.Code, because the commission engaged in rate-setting when it determined 
Ameritech’s internal wholesale rate to be zero.  However, Ameritech’s argument 
is based on a fallacy; to the extent that Ameritech’s internal wholesale rate was set 
at zero, it was so set by Ameritech, not by the commission.  The commission 
merely determined that the internal wholesale rate was zero based on 
examinations of Ameritech’s accounting records (or lack thereof) and 
consideration of testimony of Ameritech witnesses.  This determination did not 
constitute preempted rate-setting by the commission.  Therefore, we reject 
Ameritech’s second additional preemption argument. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
{¶6} 
Having rejected Ameritech’s additional argument for preemption, 
we hereby adopt the analysis and legal conclusions set forth in our opinion in the 
New Par appeal to affirm the commission’s order with respect to the following 
issues as set forth above:  (1) federal preemption, (2) conclusions supported by 
sufficient probative evidence, and (3) validly established regulations. 
{¶7} 
Remaining is the third issue of asserted error by Ameritech, that 
the commission should have sua sponte adjourned the evidentiary hearing and 
ordered Ameritech to produce evidence of its internal rate once it had become 
clear that Ameritech had failed to produce any evidence of its internal rate.  Not 
only is Ameritech’s third asserted error counterintuitive, there is no legal support 
for it.  We reject this argument as we have rejected Ameritech’s other assertions 
of error. 
{¶8} 
Therefore, we affirm the order of the commission. 
Order affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, FARMER, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in judgment only. 
 
SHEILA G. FARMER, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting for RESNICK, 
J. 
__________________ 
 
Jon F. Kelly and Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., Mark I. Wallach, 
Kevin M. Sullivan, James F. Lang and Seamus C. Duffy, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Steven T. Nourse, Duane M. 
Luckey, Kimberly A. Danosi and Thomas W. McNamee, Assistant Attorneys 
General, for appellee Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Hahn, Loeser & Parks, L.L.P., Robert J. Fogarty, Randy J. Hart, Mark D. 
Griffin; Tricarichi & Carnes and Carla M. Tricarichi, for intervening appellee, 
Westside Cellular, Inc. 
__________________