### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE N ove m be r 16, 200 5 S es sio n CON SU MERAD VOC ATE DIV ISION O F T HE OF FIC E OF THE ATT ORN EY GEN ERA L v. T ENN ESSE E R EGU LAT ORY AU THOR ITY

A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Tennessee Re gulatory Authority Nos. 03-00512, 03-00554, 03- 00624

Nos. M2004-01481- COA-R12- CV - F iled Fe bruary 1, 2006 M2004-01482- COA-R12- CV - F iled Fe bruary 1, 2006 M2004-01485- COA-R12- CV - F iled Fe bruary 1, 2006

Th is i s a

c on so lid a tio n o f three app e a ls i nv olv ing thr e e tari ff s f ile d b y B e llSo uth Telec ommunications, I nc. with the Te nnessee Reg ulatory Authority . All th re e tariff s contained bundled offe ring s of telec ommunications service s and non-tele communica t i o n s service s. The Con su me r A dv oc a te Di vis ionof the Of fi c e of theAttorne y

Ge ne ral w a s a llo we d to int e rv e ne in the se proce eding s in order to a ddress the que stion of Be llSout h’s obliga tion, under t he F eder al Te le c ommun ic a tio ns Ac t of 1 99 6, to o ff e r f or re sa le thete le c ommun ic a tio ns se rv ic e s c on ta ine d in the bu nd le d of

fe ri ng s. Th e Te nn e sse e Re g ulatory Au tho ri ty e nte re d or de rs a llo wi ng thetari ff s to g o into effe ct without the telecommunications service portions the reof being offe red f or re sale. The Consumer Advocate appe aled and the ca ses wer e consolidate d for that pur pose. I n 2005, during the pendenc y of t his appeal, the Tennessee Gener al Assembly enac ted T.C.A.§65-37-103 ( Supp. 2005). This statute specific ally

exempts retail offerings of combinations or bundles of products or se rvice s from the jurisdiction of the TennesseeReg ulatory Authority . I n addition, all three of the tariff s at issue in th is c a s e e xp ir e d , b y th e ir o w n te r ms , d u r in g th e p e n d e n c y o f th is ap p e a l, r e n d e r in g the appeal moot. Bec ause w e do not find that these a ppeals fall within any o f t h e ex ce p t i ons to the mootness doctrine, wedismiss the appe al as moot.

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12, P etition for Review; Appeal of the Tennessee Re gulatory Authority Dism issed
W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J . and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.

Paul G. Sum me rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ral a ndRe po rt e r; Vanc e L . B ro e me l, A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; J oe Shirley , Assistant Attorney Gene ral for

Petitioner, Consumer Advocate and Protec tion Divisi on“ Incum b ent t el ep ho ne co m p ani es” are general l y t he f o rme r mo no p o l y s ervi ce p roviders t hat exi st ed when t he 1 F e d eral T el eco m m uni cat i o ns A ct of 1 9 9 6 was enact ed , as o p p o sed t o t ho se com p ani es t hat ent er t he l o cal m arket s to
c o m p e te w ith inc u m b e n ts, wh ic h a re ge n e r a lly k n o w n a s “c o m p e ting c o m p a n ie s.” C o m p a n ie s tha t co m p e te w ith i ncu mb ent s by r es al e a r e a l s o know a s “ r es el l er s
. ”

“ Res al e” i s a l eg al l y
- pr es cr i bed met h od of open i n g l oca l t el ec ommun i ca t i on s ma r k et s t o c ompet i t i on w h er eby 2

c o m p e ting c o m p a n ie s (o r re se ller s) p u rc h a se the inc u m b e n t co m p a n ie s’ re ta il te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s se rv ic e s a t wh o le sa le p ric e s e sta b lishe d b y sta te utilit y c o m m issio n s a n d the n “re se ll” th e se se rv ic e s to t h e ir o w n r e ta il c u sto m e rs
. See 47 U

. S.C

. A

. §§ 25 1 (c)( 4 ), 25 2 (d)(3).

“ B un dl i ng ” i s t he prac t i ce of o f fer i ng m ul t i pl e se r vi ces t o cons umer s i n one deal , us ual l y at a di s count ed pri ce. 3 F o r e x a m p le , a te le p h o n e c o m p a n y m a y “b u n d le ” lo c a l te le p h o n e se rv ic e (a tele c o m m u n ic a tio n s se rv ic e ) th a t no rm a lly
cos t s cons umer s $30 per mo nt h a nd I nt er net s er vi ce ( a n on- t el ecom muni cat i ons s er vi ce) t hat nor mal l y cos t s $25 per m o nth i nto o ne p ac ka ge t ha t i s o f fere d t o co nsum ers a t a d i sco un t ed p rice o f $ 4 5 p er m o nth (as op p o sed t o t he $ 5 5 co st i f purchased s ep arat el y ).
-2- J . Richard Collier, Ge nera l Counsel; C arolyn E. Reed, Counsel; Randal L . Gilliam, Counsel; M onica Smith- As hf

or d, Cou ns e l of

Na sh vil le fo r R e sp on de nt- Ap pe lle e , T e nn e sse e Re g ulatory Au tho ri ty
R. Dale Grimes and Kristin J . Hazelwood of N ashv i l l e; GuyM. Hicks and Joelle Phil lips of Nashville for

Respondent-Appe llee, B ellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.

OP IN ION

During the Fall and Wint er of 2003, the Tenne ssee Reg ulatory Authority

( th e“ T RA ” ) o pened fo ur do c ke ts to a ddre ss a n inc umb e nt te le ph on e c omp a ny ’s le g a l ob lig a tio n to make it s re tail 1 telecommunications services available for resale to customers of c ompeting c ompanies whe n such 2 te le c ommun ic a tio ns se rv ic e s a ndoth e r non -t e le c ommun ic a tio ns se rv ic e s ar e bu nd le d into a sin g le dis c ou nte d o ff

e ri ng
. Th e fo ur

do c ke ts a rea s f oll ow s: 3 Sp r in t ’ s Sa fe a nd So un d T a r if f

T RAD o c k e t N o
. 03-00442, In re: Sprint United Tariff 2003-710 to Introduce Safe and Sound Solution , was ope ned to addr ess the validity of a ta riff f iled by Sprint-United (“Sprint”) on J une 30, 2003 (the “Safe and Sound Tarif f”) . Although the Safe and Sound Tariff is not the subjec t of the instant appe al, the proc edura l history of that tarif

f bears upon the issue pre sented for revie w in the c a se a t bar

. Spe c if

ic a lly , in the c on te xt of the Combin e d Bi ll Rew ardpr oc e e din g s ( se e inf ra ), Be llSout h Telec ommunications, I nc. (“ Be llSout h” an d , toge ther with the TRA, “ Appellee s”)
conce ded that the Saf

e and Sound docke t wo u l d b e t h e fo ru m in which to resolve the issue of the extent to which fede ral resale require ments under §251(c) of the Fe dera l Telec ommunications Act of 1996 (the “ Act”) apply to telecommunications s ervices that ar e bundled with nontelecommunications services. Conseque ntly , we will addr ess the his t o ry of the Safeand SoundO n N ovemb er 21, 20 03 , and s ubs equen t t o t he f i l i ng of al l bri ef s r es po ndi ng t o t he l ega l i s s ues pre s ent ed at 4
t he O ct ob er 4, 20 03 A ut hor i t y Co nf er enc e ( see i n

f ra ), A T & T pe t i t i o ned t o i nt ervene i n t he Sa fe and So und do cket

. I n its p e tit io n , A T & T jo ine d the C o n su m e r A d v o c a te ’s p o sitio n th a t a p p ro v a l o f th e S a fe a n d S o u n d T a riff c o u ld re su lt in al l o wi ng carri ers t o ci rcum vent t he fed eral resal e requir em ent s. A t the D ecem b er 15 , 20 0 3 A ut ho ri t y C o nference, t he Pa n e l v o t e d t o a l l o w AT&T t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e S a fe a n d S o u n d do c k e t on a g o i n g
- fo r w a r d ba s i s bu t di d n o t p e r m i t A T&T t o f i l e br i ef s or f

ur t her ar gu e t he t hr es hol d i s s ues i dent i f i ed on O ct ob er 6, 200 3 re gar di ng r es al e obl i gat i ons for bun dl ed
o f fering s.

Af

t er t h e par t i es s u bmi t t ed t h ei r br i ef s , bot h t h e I n t eg r at ed Sol u t i on s an d W i r el es s An s we r s pa n el s de ci ded, 5

o n N o vem b er 24 , 20 0 3 , t o hold t ho se do cket s i n ab eyance i nd ef i ni t el y “ t o p erm i t d el i b erat i o ns and a de ci si o n on t he i ss ue (c o n tinu e d ...) -3- Ta ri ff. T he Sa fea nd S oundTa ri ff of fe re d d isc ou nts on tw o o f S print ’s re g ulate d s e rv ic e s, a c c e ss lines and ca ller ID.
The Consumer Advocate Division of the Offic e of the Attorney Gene ral (“C onsumer Advocate,” or

“Appe llant”) filed a

petition to int erve ne in the Safeand Sound docket on September 5, 2 0 0 3 o n t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e S a f e a n d S o u n d T ar i f

f a l l e g e d l y s o u g h t t o e xe m p tc e rt a in telecommunications services f rom the resale requireme nts of t he Act without identify ing support for such exemptions. The Consum er Ad v o ca t e stated that the TRA should not approvethe Safe and Sound Tariff, but r ather

should convene a conte sted ca s e proc eeding and permit the Consum er Advocate to intervene in that case . Be llSout h also filed a pe tition t o intervenein the Safe and Sound docket on Septembe r 11, 2003 on the ba sis that the Safe and Sound Tariff w as similar to offe rs made by competitors in the indust ry , and base d on Be llSout h’s own ac tiviti es in providing discounted of fe rs a ndpa c ka g e s to Te nn e sse e Cus tom e rs
. OnSe pte mbe r 1 6, 20 03 , Sp ri nt f ile d it s r e sp on se to the Con su me r A dv oc a te ’s petitio n to intervene , stating that the Safe and Sound Tariff w as not subject to the re sale re quirements of the Act
a nda sking that the tari ff be a llo we d to g o in to e ff e c t. F oll ow ing a n O c tob e r 4 , 2 00 3 A uth ority Con fe re nc e , o n O c tob e r 2 1, 2003 , th e TRAe nte re d an O rd e r C on ve nin g a Con te ste d Ca se Procee ding and Gra nting Interve ntion i n t h e Safe and Sound docket. The Pane l found that 4 Be llSout h and the Consumer A dvocate “have demonst rate d a veste d interest in this matter and, the re fore, vo ted un a nim ou sly to c on ve ne a

c on te ste d c a se pr oc e e din g a ndto g rant i nte rv e nti on to both Be llSout h and the [Consumer Advocate]

. ” The Safe and Sound panel “a lso found that the
resa le re quirement is a thre shold issue...[ and] tha t i t m ay p resent a ca se of f irst impression.” Acc ording ly , the Panel orde red Sprint, B ellSouth, and the Con s u m er Advocate to file brief s and reply briefs on the question of whether any law require s an incumbent telephone company to offer for r esale at wh o l es al e p rice s all or any part of a

retail offering that bundles reg ulated telecommunications services and other non-r eg ulated s e rv ic e s
. Sprint, BellSouth, and the Consumer A d v o c a t e s u b m i t t e d b r i e f s a n d r e p l y b r i e f

s o n O c t o b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 3 a n d O c t o b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 3 r e s p e c t i v e l y. B othSprint

a ndB e llSo utharg ue d th a t in c umb e nt c omp a nie s h a ve no du ty to m ake the ir telecommunications services a vailable f or re sale at wholesale prices if suc h service s are bundled with non-telec ommunications service s. The Consumer Advoc ate a rg ued that such telecommunications services a re subjec t to applicable r esale require ments and, there fore , must be
ma de a vaila

ble , via re sa le , to the c us tom e rs of c omp a nie s that c omp e te wi th inc umb e nt c omp a nie s. 5(

. . . con t i n u ed) 5 of f eder al r es al e r equi r ement s i n [ Safe a nd Sound] ” ( s ee d i scus si o n i n f ra ).
-4- At theAu tho ri ty

Con fe re nc e he ld o n Decem ber 15, 2 00 3, theTRAde c ide d th e thr e sh old
resa le issue. Afte r fi nding that the Act “r equire s incumbent local e x chang e ca rrier s to make te le c ommun ic a tio ns se rv ic e s tha t ar e pr ov ide d b y thec arrie r at r e ta il a vaila

blefo r r e sa le a t w ho le sa le rat e s [a n d th a t] th e te le c o mmu n ic a ti o n s s e r v ic e s o f f e r e d a s b u n d le d in th is [S a f e a n d Sound] tari ff

.. .a re re ta il of

feri ng s th a t mu st b e a vaila blefo r r e sa le ,” theSa fea ndSou ndpane l un a nim ou sly decide d that “the tariff as it exists today cannot be approve d.”
On Dec ember

29, 2003, Be llSout h filed a motion re questing the TRA to rec onsider its Safe and Sound decision. The panel never ruled on Be llSout h’s m otion. Rather, on Dec ember 29, 2003, Sprint filed a letter w ithdrawing i t s S af e and Sound Tariff. In the letter, Sprint asser ted that the compan y ’s p o s ition, as stated in its S afeand Sound pleading s, was appr opriate, and that Sprint
wo uldrathe r w ith dr a w the tari ff than n e g oti a te wi th the int e rv e nin g pa rtie s to a me ndthetari ff

to conform with the ag ency ’s Safe and Sound decision.
The re maining ta

riffs we re submitted by Be llSout h and are the subjec t of this consolidated
app e a l. Were vie w the ir

re sp e c tiv e his torie s, to w it:
Be ll So uth’ s I nt e g r a t e d S o lu t io ns Ta r if f
TRA Docke t No. 03-00512, In re: Promotion to Introduce Be llSouth Integrated Solutions Program Tariff

Number 2003956 , opened to a ddre s s t h e v al idityof a ta riff f iled by Be llSout h on Aug ust 29, 2003 (the “I nteg rate d Soluti ons Tarif f”)

. The Cons umer Advoc ate f iled a “Complaint and Petition to I nterve ne” on Septe mber 12, 2003. Spec ifically , the Consumer Advoc ate a sserted that B e llSo uthha d o ff

e re d n o le g a l auth ority

fo r e xemp tin g theI nte g rate d So lution s T ari ff (o r at le a st thete le c ommun ic a tio ns se rv ic e s “b un dle d” the re in) fr om the re sa le re qu ir e me nts of theAc t. Acc ording ly , th e Consumer Advoc ate a sserted that the TRA should not approve the Integ rate d Soluti ons Tariff

, asked that a conteste d casebe convened, and asked that it be permitted to intervene in the contested c ase. At the September

22, 2003 Authority Confere nce, the Panel vot ed to s uspend the Integ rate d Soluti ons Tariff

for 30 day s and orde red B ellSouth to respond to the Consumer Advocate’s petition to intervene within seven d ay s
. On S eptember 25, 2003, Be llSout h filed the “ Comments of Be llSout h Telec ommunications, I nc. in support of its Tarif f to I ntroduce Be llSout h I nteg rate d Soluti ons and in Opposition t o Posit ion of Consumer Advocate Division.” On Octobe r 21, 20 03 , th e Pa ne l vo te d to su sp e ndtheI nte g rate d So lution s T ari ff fo r an add iti on a l 45 day s ( un til Dec ember

10, 2003) pending the outcome of the Safe and Sound docket. At the N ovember 24, 2003 A u t h o r i t y C o n f e r e n c e , t h e P a n e l v o t e dt o s u s p e n dt h e In t e g r a t e dS o l u t i o n s T ar i f f i n d e f i n i t e l y, pe nd ing theou tc omeof

theSa fea ndSou nddo c ke t. O n D e c e mbe r 8, 200 3, B e llSo uth fi le d a r e qu e st that the TRA h ea r o ra l ar g ument in the I nteg rate d Soluti ons docket at the reg ularly schedule d Dec ember

15, 2003 Authority

Confere nce. O n Dec ember 15, 2003, the P an el m o v ed t o defe r-5-

consideration of the I nteg rate d Soluti ons Tariff until J anuary

5, 2004. On Dec ember

29, 2003, Sprint filed its letter in the Safe and Sound docket withdra wing the Safeand Sound Tarif f. During the J anuary 5, 2004 Authority Confere nce, the Panel vot ed to approve the Integ rate d Soluti ons Tarif

f on the grounds that the bundl ed services offere d in the tariff foster c ompetition and
areindividuallyavailable for r esale under BellSouth’s Gene ral S ubscriber Tarif f. The P anel voted to allo w the I nte g rate d So lutio ns Ta ri ff to g o in to e ff

e c t im me diate ly . T he Con su me r A dv oc a te asserts that this decision was in error . Specifica lly , it states that “althoug h the Safe and Sound panel had ruled just three wee ks earlier, on Dec ember 15, that bundled s ervic e tariffs, such a s the ones at issue in [ the] S afeand Sound and Integ rate d Soluti ons, m u s t b e made available for r esale at wholesale price s, the I nteg rate d Soluti ons panel rev erse d course [i n rea ching its decision on the I nteg rate d Soluti ons Tariff ].”
Be ll So uth’ s C o m bi ne d B il l R e wa r d T a r if f

T R A Docket No. 03-00624, I n re : T a r i f f t o E s ta b l i s h Co n s u m e r W

i re l e s s Co m b i n e d B ill Reward Offer–Tariff

Number 2003-1379 , o pe ne d to a ddre ss the va lid ity of a tari ff fi le d b y B e llSo uth on Dec ember

3, 2004 (the “Combined Bill Rewar d Tarif f”)

. The Com bined B ill R ewa rd Tariff wa s offe red by Be llSout h as a promotion set to beg in on J anuar y 2, 2004 and to conc lude on Dec ember 27, 2004. The Combined B ill R ewa rd Tariff included B ellSouth landline service an d Cingular Wireless service

. OnDe c e mbe r 3 , 2 00 3, theTe le c ommun ic a tio ns Di vis ion re qu e ste d th a t th e Combin e d B ill Rewar d Tarif

f be a ssigne d a docke t number and be added to the T RA’s ag enda f or consider ation at its reg ularly -sche duled Authority Confere nce on D ece mber 15, 2003. On D ece mber 5 , 2 0 0 3 , the Telec ommunications Division s ent a data re quest to Be llSout h reg arding the Combined B ill R ewa rd Tarif f’s a vailability

for r esale

. OnDe c e mbe r 8 , 2 00 3, th e Co ns ume r A dv oc a te fi le d it s “ Complaint a ndPe tit ionto I nterve ne,” in whic h the C onsumer Advocate asserted that the C ombined Bill Rewar d Tarif f did not expli citly provide that the ta

riff w as subject to the r esale require ments of the Act. The Consumer Ad vo c a te state d th a t th e TRAsh ou ld n ot a pp ro ve theCombin e d B ill Re wa rdTa ri ff , a sk e d th a t a contested c ase be convene d, and aske d that it be permitted to intervenein that case . On Dec ember 11 , 2 00 3, B e llSo uthfi le d “ B e llSo uth Te le c ommun ic a tio ns , I nc .’ s Res po ns e to C on su me r A dv oc a te Divisi o n ’s C omplaint and Petition t o I nterve ne.” In this Response, Be llSout h objected to the convening of a c ontested ca se on the ba sis that s o doing w ould result in a delay in bring ing the promotion to Tenne ssee customers. I n the alternative, BellSouth asserted t hat, i f t he Authority was inclined to convenea conte sted ca se in the matter, then the Authority should nonetheless allow the Combined Bill Reward T ariff to go into ef

fec t p en d i n g re s olution of the Consumer Advocate’s I nterve ntion.
On Dec ember

12, 2003, Be llSout h filed its responses to the Te lecommunications Division’s data r equest. The rein, B ellSouth ex plained its position that the Combined B ill Rewa rd Tarif f wa s-6-

not a “bundle” to the extent that itdid not offer customers two or m ore pr oducts at a sing le price and that, beca use t h e t ariff

does not provide r eg ulated services at a discount, it was not available for
resa le. BellSouth further explained that the telec ommunications service s offe red in the Combined Bill Rewar d Tarif

f we re “ available for r esale , on a stand-alone ba s i s , at t h e standard ta riff price minus the wholesale d i s co u n t established by the TRA for suc h service s” and that there w as no a dd iti on a l “ ob lig a tio n t o m a kei n d i v i du al B e l l S o u th

- p r o v i d e d t e l e c o m mu nic a tio ns se rv ic e s a va ila ble for r esale at a r ate that is not available in the re tail marketplac e.”
The Auth o r ity

c o n s id e r e dth e Co mb in e dB il l R e w ar dT ar if f a t th e r e g u la

r ly s c h e d u led Authority Confere nce on Dec ember 15, 2003. At the Confere nce, the Consumer Advocat e st ated its posit ion that the Combined Bill Rewar d Tarif f was depende nt upon the proceeding s in the Safe and Sound docket. The Consumer Advoc ate state d that the Combined Bill Rewar d Tarif f pre sented
a fa c tual is su e of

wh e the r the tari ff

wo ulda dv e rs e ly

a ff e c t c ompetitiona ndtha

t B e llSo uthsh ou ld bear the burde n of proof in resolving the i ssue. Be llSout h appea red through c ounsel and a rg ued that the Combined Bill Rewar d docket pr esente d only leg al issues and t h at a co n t ested c ase w as not wa rr a nte d. At

the c los e of

theDe c e mbe r 1 5, 20 03 pr oc e e din g , andwi th t he a g re e me nt o f the pa

rt ie s, the Panel voted to require each party to submit a brief addressing the issue of whe ther a contested
caseshould be conve ned in t he Combined Bill Rewa rd docke t. The Panel voted to suspend the Combined Bill Reward T ariff until J anuary

5, 2004. Be llSout h filed its brief on De cembe r 22, 2003, and the Consumer A dvocate filed its brief on De cembe r 30, 2003.
At theJanu ary

5, 20 04 Au tho ri ty Co nfere nc e , th e Pa ne l r e -s us pe nd e d th e Combin e d B ill Rewar d Tarif

f until January 8, 2004. The Panel rec onvened on J anuary 8, 2004 t o co n s i d er the Combined Bill Rewar d Tarif f and W ireless Answe rs Tariff, see discussion inf ra
. At that confe renc e, the Panel dete rmined that consider ation of the re sale iss ue was premature based on the fact that no
re se lle r h a d e xpre sse d an in te re st i n r e se lli ng thetari ff s. Th e Pa ne l vo te d to allo w the Combin e d B ill R e w ar dT ar i f

f a n dt h e W i r e l e s s A n s w e r s T ar i f f t o t ak e e f f e c ti m m e d i a t e l y.
Be ll So uth’ s W ir e le s s A ns we r s Ta r if f
TRA Docke t No. 03-00554, I n r e : T a r i f f t o E s ta b l i s h W

i re l e s s A n s w e r

s P ro m o tio n- Tar iff Number 2003-1036 , opened to a ddress the validity of a ta riff f iled by Be llSout h on September 19, 20 0 3 ( t h e “ W i r e l e s s A n s w e r s T ar i f f ” )

. T h e W i r e l e s s A n s w e r s T ar i f f i n c l u d e dv ar i o u s B e l lSo uth landline servic es, voi cemail, and Cingular Wireless service . On Octobe r 16, 2003, the Consumer Advocate filed its “Petitio n t o I nterve ne in the Wireless Answe rs Docke t.” In its petiti on, the Consumer Advocate alleg ed that the Wireless Answe rs Tariff did not ex p l icitly provide that the offe ring was subjec t to the resale require ments of the Ac t. As with the I nteg rate d Soluti ons Tariff , the Consumer Advoc ate asked that the Wireless Answer s Tariff not be appr oved, that a c ontested
casebe conve ned, and that the Consumer Advocate be permitted to intervene in that c ontested ca se.
Th e Wir e le ss A ns we rs Ta ri ff wa s c on sid ered du ri ng there g ula rl y sc he du le d A uth ority Conf e r e n c e h e ld o n O c to b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 3

. T h e Pan e l v o te d to s u s p e n d th e ta r if f f o r 4 5 d ay s to allow Be llSout h to respond to the Consumer Advoc ate’ s petition to intervene , and to allow for the filing-7-

of brief s in the Safe and Sound docket. B ellSouth filed its “Response of B ellSouth to P etition of Con su me r A dv oc a te to Inte rv e ne ” on No ve mbe r 1 2, 20 03 . I n its Res po ns e , Be llSo uthob je c te d to the conve ning of

a conte sted ca se on the ba sis that the Consumer Advocate had made no showing of any need to e ng ag e in the delay involved in a contested c ase. TheWireless Answer s Tariff was re- suspended at the November 24, 2003 Authority

Confere nce.
At the Dec ember

15, 2003 Authority

Confere nce, the Panel consider ed th e Wireless Answe rs Ta ri ff. A t th e c los e of

that pr oc e e din g , an d wi th th e a g re e me nt o f the pa rtie s, thePa ne l vo te d to requireeac h party

to submita brie f addr essing the is s ue of w hether a conte sted ca se should be
c on ve ne d intheWir e le ss A ns we rs do c ke t. Th e pa rtie s ag re e d that e a c h w ou ld f ile a sin g le brie f i n the Wireless Answer s and Combined Bill Rewar d dockets. B ellSouth filed its brief on Dece mber 22, 2003, and the Consumer A dvocate filed its brief on De cembe r 30, 2003.
The Pane l convene d on J an u ary 8, 2004 to consider the Combined B ill R ewa rd Tariff and the Wireless Answer s Tariff. As discussed above , at this meeting , a m ajorit y of the Pane l determined that consideration of the resa le issue was pr ema t u re o n the basis that no re seller ha d expressed an inter est in rese lling these tariff s. The P anel voted to allow t he C ombined Bill Rewar d Ta ri ff a ndtheWir e le ss A ns we rs Ta ri ff to t ake e ff

e c t imme diate ly a ndto c on sid e r B e llSo uth ’s re sa le obligations onlyupon complaint from a r eseller alleg ing that the telecommunications services at iss ue we reno t a vaila

blefo r r e sa le a t th e dis c ou nte d b un dle d r a te s.
The TRA e ntere d final orde rs in Be llSout h’s ca ses in April 2004. The Integ rate d Soluti ons Tariff

s was appr oved by

Orde r enter ed on April 22, 2004. The Wireless Answe rs Tariff and the Combined B ill R ewa rds Tariff we re a

pproved by

final orde r ente red on A pril 28, 2004. On the basis of the TRA’ s decision conc erning resa le obliga tions in t he Safeand Sound case , the Consumer Advocate appe als from these final orde rs in the B ellSouth cases. In its brief, the Con su me r A dv oc a te raise s th e fo llo wi ng iss ue s:

I

. Whether the TRA err ed in holding that bundled telecommunications servi ce s d o n ot have to be of fer ed for resa le at wholesale price s under f

eder al law.

I I . Whether the TRA a

bused its discretion or a cted a rbi trarily or c ap r i c i o u s l y:
A. when the ag ency

abandone d without ex planation thepr oc e ss i t ha d e sta

bli sh e d to a ddre ss the thr e sh old leg al issue of whe ther bundled te lecommunications
se rv ic e s mu st b eof

fe re d f or re sa le a t w ho le sa le pric e s;
B. w h e n th e a g e n c y

ma d e in c o n s is te n t d e c is io ns regard i n g t h e i s s u e o f wh ether bundled-8- telecommunications services must b e off ere d for
re sa le a t w ho le sa le pric e s;
C. when the a g enc y en tere d a fina l order a pproving one tariff without ever direc tly add re ssing the threshold re sale que stion that the a g e n c y it self dee med to be the ce ntral issue in the ca se; and
D. when the ag ency

enter ed final orders a llowing two tariff s to take ef

fec t based on the TRA’s finding that the Consumer Advocate ha d not presente d a justiciable issue.

I I I . Whether the TRA e rre d in approving o r allowing tariff s to take
e ff e c t w ith ou t ma

kin g thefi nding s r e qu ir e d u nd e r f e de ral la w t o overc ome the pre sumption th at bundled telecommunications services
mus t beof

fe re d f or re sa le a t w ho le sa le pric e s. By letter filed A ug ust 3, 2005, Be llSout h notified this Court of t he legislature ’s amendme nt of Ti tle 65 of

theTe nn e sse e Cod e , to wi t: On May 28, 2005, Governor Phil Bre d esen signed into law 2005 Tenn. Pub. Acts 270, which ame nded Title 65 of the T ennesse e Code by rem o v i ng retail offerings of combinations or bundles of products or se rvice s from the jurisdi c ti o no f th eT e n n essee Reg ulatory Authority (the “ TRA”). The leg islation provide s, in pertinent part, as fo llo ws :
The TRA shall re tain regulatory jurisdiction established in this tit le for spe cific, individual te le c ommun ic a tio ns se rv ic e s. Exc e pt a s p ro vid e d in this section, the TRA s h all not assert re g ulatory jurisdiction over the re tail offe ring of combinations or bundl es of products or services, whe ther or not suc h combinations or bundles of pr oducts o r s ervic es ar e s u b j ec t to a tariff

or other r eg ulatory

filing w ith the TRA as of the e ffe ctive date of this a ct and whether or n o tc o m p r i s e do f

p r o d u c t s o r

s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e db y a l o c a l e x c h a n g e c arr i e r a l o n e o r w i t h a n o t h e r c o m p a n y.
T h u s , s u b s e q u e n t to M a y 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 [th e e f f e c ti v e d a te o f

the amendment], combinations of products or se rvice s, such as the-9- combinatio n s at issue in these c onsolidated appe als areno longe r subject to the re g ulatory

jurisdiction of the TRA. The pa rties to this appeal brie fed the issue of mootness in the context of promotions t hat expire ac cording to the ir terms during the pendenc y of an a ppeal in Office of the At torney General, Consumer Ad v oc ate an d P ro te c tio n Di v isi on v . Th e Te nn e sse e Re gu lator y Au tho rit y , Case No. M2003-01363- C OA-T12-CV. Be causethe promotions at issue in these consolidated a ppeals h av e expired
a c c or din g to the te rm s a nda ny ne w p ro motion s w ill no t besu bje c t to there g ulatory

jurisd ic tio n o f the TRA , B e llSo uth su bmi ts the se po stjudgme nt fac ts in support of its arg ument t h at t he consolidate d
app e a ls s ho uldbe dis mis se d a s mo ot. (F ootnote omitted).

B y le tte r o f A ug us t 8, 20 05 , th e Con su me r A dv oc a te fi le d it s r e sp on se wi th thi s Court, t o w it: ...Petitioner respe ctfully submits i ts response to Respondent Be llSout h Telec ommunications I nc.’s letter of Aug ust 3, 2005, reg arding passag e of 2005 Te nn. Pub. Acts 270....
Se c tio n 4 of

Cha pte r N o. 27 0 s tate s inpe rtine nt p art : (a) (1)...Except as provided in this section, the TRA s h al l not assert re g ulatory jurisdiction over the
re ta il o ff e ri ng of c omb inatio ns or

bu nd le s of

pr od uc ts or ser v i ces, whether or

not such combinations or bundles of produc ts or service s are subject to a tariff or other r eg ulatory

filing w ith t h e TRA as of the eff ective date of this act....

* * * (c) Nothing in this sec tion sha ll affe ct, alter or be c on str ue d to a ff e c t or a lte r the app lic abil ity of

state or fe dera l antitrust law or feder al telec ommunications l aw o r t h e T R A’ s authorit y under f

eder al telecommunications law.

* * *T he T R A an d B el l Sout h f i l ed t hei r r es pect i ve s uppl ement al bri ef s on D ece mb er 1, 200 5. T he C ons umer 6 Advoc at e f

i l ed i t s s u ppl eme n t al br i ef on D ec embe r 16, 2005.

-10- (e) Nothing in this s ection shall alter or expand the TRA’s juri sdiction to hear c omplaints alleg ing price discrimination as prohibited b y Tenne ssee law or anti-c ompetitive pr actice s reg arding the provision of re ta il t e le c ommun ic a tio ns se rv ic e s w ith in i ts jurisd ic tio n a s it s ju ri sd ic ti on e xiste d im me diate ly prior to the ef

fec tive date of

this act, ex cept to the
e xtent that su c h ju ri sd ic tio n is re du c e d p ur su a nt t o exemption bythe TRA subsequent to the e ffe ctive date of thi s a c t. Thus, subsequent to [the] pa ssag e of Chapter No. 270, combinations of produc ts or service s, such as the c ombinations at issue in these consolidated appeals, remain subject t o the re g ulatory jurisdiction of the Tenne ssee Reg ulat ory Authority

for the issues pr e se nte d f

or re vie w i n th e se c a se s. Following oral a

rg ument in this appeal, it became appa rent that mootness (ba sed upon the
ne w l e g isl a tio n an d the a lle g e d e xpir a tio n o f the tari ff s at is su e ) w ou ld b e a

thre sh oldiss ue in this
app e a l. C on se qu e ntl y , b y Or de r o f N ov e mber 16 , 20 05 , thi s Co urt or de re d th e pa rtie s to fi le supplemental brief

s and re ply b ri ef s “re g arding the ef fec t of the new leg islation and the issue of mootness in these appe al. The A ppellees should include any authority conce rning the ac tion of the FCC that involve the issues in this li tigation.” 6

On Dec ember 16, 2005, the C onsumer Advoc ate f iled a “Motion to Consider Fa cts Relating to the I ssue of Mootness,” along with a Memorandum of L aw, and other documentation in support there of. In its Moti on, the Consumer Advocate c ontends that two of tariffs at issue in this appea l (Wireless Answe rs, and Combined B ill R ewa rd) ha ve not expired or g one out of eff ect ( as ar g ued by Be llSout h and the TRA)

. Rather, the Consumer Advocate ar g ues that, since B ellSouth has filed
sever al “ve rsi o n s ” o f t h ese tariffs with the TRA, whic h filings a lleg edly functioned to e x tend the expiration dates of the Wireless Answer s Tarif f to A pril 16, 2004 and of the Combined Bill Reward Tarif f to Dec ember

31, 2005, the tariff

s are still in effect and, conseque ntly , the appe al cannot be de e me d mo ot. Th e Con su me r A dv oc a te a sk e d this Cou rt to co ns ide r the fi lin g of thene w “ ve rs ion s” of the tariffs as amendments or revisions of the orig inal tariff s, as opposed to new tariff s in and of the mse lve s.
Be llSout h an dth e T RAf il e dth e ir r e s p o n s e s o n D e c e mb e r

2 7 , 2 0 0 5 a n dar g u e dth a t the
su bs e qu e nt f

ili ng s w e rene w t ari ff

s, a s opp os e d to ame nd me nts or re vis ion s of the tari ff s at is su e in the app e a l. B e c aus e the Con su me r Ad vo c a te c ou ld a lle g e dly ha ve ob je c te d to the fil in g of t he se independe nt tariffs at the time Be llSout h prese nt them to the TRA, Be llSout h and the TRA took theT h e r el ev an t por t i on s of T

. C. A. §65- 37- 103 (S u pp. 2005) ar e i n cl u ded i n t h e Aug u s t 3, 2005 a n d Au g u s t 8, 7 2 0 0 5 lette rs fi le d w ith this C o u rt, see sup ra . H o w e v e r, in th e inte re st o f c la rity, we inc lud e the full t e x t o f t h e sta tute her e: ( a) ( 1) T h e T en n es s ee r eg u l at or y a u t h or i t y ( T RA) s h al l r et ai n re g u l at or y j u r i s di ct i on

es t abl i s h ed i n t h i s t i t l e for s pec i f i c, i n di v i du al t el ec ommun i ca t i on s s er v i ce s
. Exc ept as p rovided i n t hi s sect i o n, t he T R A s hal l not ass ert regul at o ry jur i sdi ct i o n ove r t he
r et ai l of fer i n g of combi n at i on s or bu n dl es of pr odu ct s or s er v i ce s , w h et h er or n ot
s uch comb i nat i ons or bundl es of product s or s er vi ces ar e s ubj ect t o a t ar i f f or ot her
r egu l at ory f

i l i ng wi t h t he T R A as of M ay 28, 200 5, an d whet her or not comp r i s ed of product s or s er vi ces provi ded by a l ocal exc han ge car r i er al one or wi t h a not her
co m p any. N o t hi ng i n t hi s sect i o n s hal l requi re any co m p any t o engage i n joi nt
mar k et i n g w i t h a n ot h er c ompan y w h en i t doe s n ot c h oos e t o do s o. (2 ) In o rd e r to tra n sitio n to the c h a n g e s in r e g u la to ry ju risd ic tio n e sta b lishe d b y this part , t e l e c om mu ni cat i ons ca r r i er s s hal l provi de cu s t om er s wi t h t he fol l owi ng not i ce, as p art o f the t erm s and c o nd i t i o ns fo r b und l es o r co m b i nat i o ns: " T hi s o f fer contai ns t el eco m m uni cat i o ns ser vi ces t hat a re als o a vai l ab l e separat el y
. S ho ul d y o u de si re t o pu r ch as e on l y t h e t el ec ommun i ca t i on s s er v i ce s i n cl u ded i n t h i s of fer , wi t ho ut ad d i t i o nal pro d uct s o r s ervi ces, y o u m ay p urchase t ho se t el eco m m u n ic at i o ns ser vi ces i nd i vi d ual l y at pri ces po st ed on [co m p any web si t e] or f i l ed wi t h t he T e n n e sse e R e g u la to ry A u tho rity." ( 3) T he T R A s hal l i s s ue a s t at ewi de publ i c s er vi ce ann ounce ment , no l es s t han once p er y ear , t o i nf

orm T enn es s ean s t hat t el ecomm un i cat i ons s er vi ces t hey pur cha se m ay b e avai l ab l e at different pri ces, de p end i ng upo n whet her t hey are bo ught ind ivid u a lly o r b o u g h t b u n d le d , an d to info rm T e n n e s s e a n s tha t f u n c tio n a lly eq ui val ent s ervi ces may b e avai l ab l e f rom pro vi d ers who do not o f fer s ervi ce usi ng w ire li n e tec h n o lo g y. S c rip ts fo r th e se a n n o u n c e m e n ts sh a ll b e p o ste d fo r c o m m e n ts fro m ind u st r y a n d c o n su m e rs o r th e ir re p re se n ta tive s b e fo re b e ing us e d a n d sh a ll
no t f av o r an y on e p ro vid er o r t ec hn o l o gy o ve r o t he rs. ( b) U nl es s ot her wi s e a gr eed by t he end- us er , t he t er ms and condi t i ons es t abl i s hed (c o n tinu e d ...)
-11- stance that this Court shoul d not consider thesefac ts. This Court felt that, in order to re view the disputed documents, the motion should be g rante d. The motion was g rante d by separ ate Or der.
After a thoroug h revie w of the supporting doc umentation, which consisted of Affida vits and the ac tual filings with the TRA, this Court conclude d that the s ubsequent filing s were , indeed, ne w tari ff s a ndno t me re ly

a me nd me nts or

re vis ion s to the e xistin g tari ff s, wh ic h ar e thesu bje c t of thi s appeal; see discussion inf ra
. B a se d u po n o ur fi nd ing s con c e rn ing the Con su me r A dv oc a te ’s “ Mo tio n to Con sid e r F a c ts Relating to the I ssue of Mootness,” and discussed a bove, the spe cific ta

riffs involved in this appea l (i.e. the Wireless Answ ers Ta riff, the I nteg rate d Soluti ons Tariff , and the Combined B ill R ewa rds Tarif f) ha ve expired by

their own ter

ms and areno longe r in eff ect. Th i s fa ct , co u p l ed with t he amendment of

T.C.A. §65-37-103 ( Supp. 2005), which spec ifically remove s these types of bundled of fe ri ng s f ro m th e jurisd ic tio n of the TRA , ra ise s a su bs ta nti a l qu e sti on of moo tne ss, wh ic h w e mus t a ddre ss at th e ou tse t. 7(

. . . con t i n u ed) 7 by t a r i f

f s o r o t h e r f

i l i n g s a t t h e TRA fo r c o m b i n a t i o n s o r b u n d l e s o f p r odu ct s or ser vi ces s hal l remain ef fect i ve as t o end

- user s who have sel ect ed such com b i nat i o ns o r bund l es pri o r t o M ay 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , fo r t he d urat i o n of a t erm s el ect ed by t he
e n d

- u s e r
. I f n o t e r m w a s s e l e c t e d b y t h e e n d

- u s e r fo r a c o m b i n a t i o n o r b u n dl e of product s or s er vi ces , or i f no t er m l i mi t appl i ed t o s uch comb i nat i on or bundl e, t hen t h e t er ms a n d c on di t i on s g ov er n i n g t h at c ombi n at i on or bu n dl e of pr odu ct s or s er vi ces , at t he t i me t he en d- us er su bsc r i bed, sh al l remai n i n ef fect unt i l t he end- us er ag r ee s or e l ec t s ot h er wi s e or u n t i l t h e en d- u s er i s n ot i ce d of a c h an g e i n t er ms by t he s er vi ce provi der. T er ms a nd condi t i o ns ori gi nal l y es t abl i s hed by approved t ar i f f s , w h i ch a r e ch an g ed an d n ot i ce d t o cu s t omer s s u bs equ en t t o M ay 28, 2005,
s h al l bi n d e n d- u s er s
. End- u s er s w h o t er m i nat e s er v i ce w i t h i n t h i r t y ( 30) da y s of i s s uan ce of

t he not i ce of

a c han ge i n s uch t er ms and condi t i ons s hal l not be af fect ed by s uch ch ang ed t er ms and condi t i ons for t he peri od bet ween i s s uan ce of t he not i ce and t er mi nat i on of

s er vi ce.

(c) N o t hi ng i n t hi s sect i o n s hal l af fect , al ter o r be co nst rued t o af fect or al t er t he appl i ca bi l i t y of

s t at e or f

ede r al a n t i t r u s t l aw or f ede r al t el ec ommun i ca t i on s l aw or t he T R A ' s autho rit y und er fed era l t elec o m m un i ca t i o ns laws.
( d) Any p r ovi der of

l ocal ex cha ng e s er vi ce s hal l per mi t an y en d- us er of bas i c l ocal
e x c h a n g e tele p h o n e se rv ic e to ter m ina te tha t se rv ic e up o n re q u e st a n d sh a ll ta k e a ll adm i ni s t r at i ve s t eps ne ces s ar y , i ncl udi ng "nu mb er po r t abi l i t y , " as t hat t er m i s us ed i n 47 U

. S. C

. § 15 3(30), of t he end- us er ' s ex i s t i ng t el ephone nu mb er , t o permi t s uch end- us er t o begi n r ece i vi ng r epl ace ment s er vi ce f r om an ot her ce r t i f

i cat ed provi der i n a t i m el y m anner. ( e) N ot hi ng i n t hi s s ect i on s hal l al t er or expan d t he T R A ' s j ur i sdi ct i on t o hea r compl ai n t s a l l eg i n g pr i ce di s cr i mi n at i on , a s pr oh i bi t ed by T en ness ee l aw , or ant i

- co m p et i t i ve p ract i ces r egard i ng t he p rovis i o n of ret ai l t el eco m m uni cat i o ns s er vi ces wi t hi n i t s j ur i s di ct i on as i t s j ur i s di ct i on exi s t ed i mm edi at el y pri or t o M ay 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , ex c e p t t o the e x te n t t h a t suc h ju risd ic tio n i s r e d u c e d p u rs u a n t t o exe mp t i on by t he T R A s ubs equen t t o M ay 28, 200 5. T hi s ch apt er does not conf er j u r i s di ct i on on t he T R A r el at i n g t o s er v i ce s ou t s i de i t s j u r i s di ct i on a s of M ay 28, 2 0 0 5 . In e v a lua ting c la im s o f an ti- c o m p e tit ive p ra c tice s in a n y re ta il te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s se rv ic e s m a rk e t, the T R A s hal l a p p ly ap p lica b le fed e ra l o r sta te l aw and s hal l co nsi d e r a l l rel evant f act o rs , i ncl ud i ng, but no t l i m i t ed t o , t he fo l l o wi ng: ( 1) T h e g eog r aph i ca l a nd ec on omi c ex t en t of c ommer ci al de man d for f un cti o na l l y- eq uiva l en t service s; (2) T he num b er and rel at i ve l o ngevi t y o f co m p ani es providi ng f un cti o na l l y- eq uiva l en t service s; (3) T he rel at i ve gai n or l o ss of revenues a ttr i b ut ab l e t o f unct i o nal l y
- eq ui val ent
serv i ce s and cu st o m ers w ho p urc ha se func t i o na l l y- eq uiva l en t service s; (4 ) T h e re la tive inc r e a se o r d e c re a se in fa c ili ties-b a se d inv e stm e n t attrib u ta b le to p ro vid i ng f

un cti o na l l y- eq uiva l en t service s; (5 ) T h e d e g re e to w h ic h m a rk e ting , p ric ing a n d b u sin e ss str a te g ie s a re utilize d to (c o n tinu e d ...)
-12-(

. . . con t i n u ed) 7
acq ui re or m ai nt ai n revenues at t ri b ut ab l e t o f unct i o nal l y
- eq ui val ent se rvi ces and cust o m ers who purchase f unct i o nal l y
- eq ui val ent s ervi ces; and (6) T he rel at i o nshi p b et ween p ri ci ng p o l i ci es and c o st s o f f unct i o nal l y
- eq ui val ent
serv i ce s. ( f) N ot hi ng i n t hi s s ecti o n shal l al t er t he T R A ' s j ur i s di ct i on t o re vi ew pr i ce r eg u l at i on f

i l i n g s or c on du ct r at e of r et u r n r at ema k i n g a n al y s i s , a s a ppl i ca bl e, for i ncum b ent local exchange c arri er (ILE C ) t el eco m m uni cat i o ns p roviders. R evenue for t el ec ommun i ca t i on s s er v i ce s pr ov i ded i n c ombi n at i on s or bu n dl es s h al l be
c o n sid e re d re g u la te d re v e n u e fo r p u rp o se s o f p ric e re g u la tio n o r ra te o f re tur n ra te
an alysi s. -13- I n Offic e of the Attorney General, Consum er Advocate and Protection Di vi s i o n v. Te nne sse e Re

gul ato ry Autho rit

y , No

. M2 00 3- 01 36 3- CO A- R12 -C V, 20 05 WL 31 93 68 4 ( Te nn . Ct

. Ap p. No v. 29 . 2 00 5) , this Cou rt dis c us se d the la w of moo tne ss i n th e c on te xt of the se ty pe s o f c a se s, to w it:
The re quirements for litigation to c ontinue are essentially the
same a s the requir ements for litigation to beg in. Chart er Lakeside Be h avi or al Hea lt h S ys. v. T en n ess ee H

eal th Fac ili ties Co mm 'n , No. M1998-00985-COA- R3-CV, 2001 WL 72342, at *5 (Te nn.Ct.App. Jan. 30 , 200 1) (N o T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 1 a pp lic a tio n f

ile d) . Ac a semus t remain justi ciable thr ough o u t the entire course of the litigation, includi n g any

appeal. Sta te v . El

y , 48 S.W .3d 710, 716 n. 3 (T e nn .2 00 1) ; Cashi on v. Robertson , 955 S.W .2d 60, 62-63 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997). Acaseis not justiciable if it does not involve a g e nu ine , e xistin g c on tr ov e rs y re qu iring thea dju dic a tio n o f p re se ntl y ex i s ting rights. Sta te v . Br own & Wil

lia mson T

ob ac c o Co rp ., 18 S.W. 3d18 6, 19 3 ( Te nn .2 00 0) ; Ford Consum er Fin

. Co. v. Clay , 984 S.W .2d 615, 616 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998).
A moot case is one that has lost its justiciabilit y beca use it no longe r i nvolves a present, ongoing controve rsy
. Mc Canl e ss v . Kl e in , 18 2 T e nn . 6 31 , 63 7, 18 8 S.W. 2d 74 5, 74 7 ( 19 45 ); Coun ty of Shelby
v . M c W her te r , 9 36 S .W .2 d 9 23 , 9 31 (Ten n. Ct .Ap p. 19 96 ). A casewi ll be c on sid e re d mo ot i f i t no lon g e r s e rv e s a s a me a ns to p ro vid e so me sort of j udicial relief t o the pre vailing pa rty

. Knot t v . St e war t Co unty , 18 5 T e nn . 6 23, 62 6, 20 7 S. W.2 d 3 37 , 3 38 -3 9 ( 19 48 ); For d Consu m er Fin

. Co. v . Clay , 984 S.W .2d at 616. Dete rmining w hether
a ca se is moot i s a question of law

. Chart er Lakeside Behavioral He alt h Sy s. v . Te nne sse e He alt h Fac iliti es Comm 'n , 2 0 0 1 WL 72 34 2, a t *5 ; Orlando Residence, Ltd. v. Nashville Lodging Co. , No.-14- M1999-0 0 9 4 3

- CO A

- R3

- CV , 1 9 9 9 WL 1 0 4 0 5 4 4 , at * 3 (Tenn.Ct.App. Nov. 17, 1999) (N o Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed)

. Whe n a c a se is d e te rm ine d to be moo t a nd wh e n it do e s n ot f it into one of the exceptions to the mootness doc trine, an appellate court sh ou ld o rd ina

ri ly va c a te the jud g me nt b e low a ndre ma ndthec a se to the trial court with directions that it be dismiss ed. For d Consu m er Fin . Co. v. Clay , 9 8 4 S

. W

. 2 da t61 7; McIntyre v.. Traughber , 884 S.W. 2d13 4, 13 8 (T e nn .Ct .A pp .1 99 4) . H ow e ve r, if thec a se falls int o one of the rec og nized ex ceptions to the moo t ness doctrine , the
app e llate c ou rt ha s th e dis c re tio n to re a c h th e me ri ts o f the app e a l in spite of t he fact t hat t he case has become moot. Alliance for Native Am. In d i a n R i

g h t s i n Te nn., Inc . v . Nic e ly , No. M2002-0 2 5 5 5

- CO A

- R3

- CV , 2 0 0 5 WL 1 1 1 1 1 9 2 , at * 3 (Tenn.Ct.App. May 10, 2005) perm. app. denied ( Tenn. Oc t. 17, 2005).
The c ourts h av e re cog nized severa l exceptions to t he
m o o t n ess doctrine. The thre e most common exceptions include: issues of g reat public importance , issues aff ecting the administration of justice, and issues c apable of re petition y et eva ding r eview. The courts invoke the “ capa ble of re petition y et eva ding r ev i ew” exception only

wher e (1 ) there is a rea sonable e x pectation that the of fi c ia l a c t th a t pr ov ok e d the lit ig a tio n w ill oc c ur a g a in, (2 ) the reis a risk that effec tive judicial reme dies cannot be provided in the eve nt that th e of fi c ia l a c t r e oc c ur s, a nd(3 ) the sa me c omp la ini ng pa rty wi ll be pre judiced by

the offic ial act when it reocc urs. A mere theore tical possib il ity th a t a n a c t mi g h t r e o c c u r is n o t s u f f ic ie n t to in v o ke the except io n
. Rath e r , th e r e mu s t b e a r e a s o n ab le e xp e c tati o n or a demonstrated probability that the same c ontroversy will recur involving the same complaining party

. A l l i a n c e f o rN a ti v e A m. Ind ian Rights in Te nn., Inc . v . N ic e ly , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 111192, at *4 (c i t i n g Mu rp h

y v. Hunt , 455 U.S. 478, 482, 102 S.C t. 1181, 1184 (1982))

. (F ootnotes omitt ed).

I n it s su pp le me ntal brie f, theCon su me r A dv oc a te fi rs t ar g ue s that the se c on so lid a te d a pp e a ls
arenot moot because the tariff s involved therein a

re sti l l i n ef

fe ct. The Consumer A dvocate ’s arg ument is b as ed u p o n t h e additional filing s made with the TRA, a s discussed su pr a , w hic h it contends we re me rely

extensions, revision s , o r ame ndments to the exi sting tariffs. As discussed ab o v e, we d i s agr ee
. Ha v i n g re v i ew ed t h es e s u p p l em en t al fi l i n gs , w e co n cl u d e t h att h e f i l i n gs constitute new, distinct tariff s. Although the offe ring s in the s ubsequent filings areidentical to the orig inal tariff

s at the hea

rt of this appea l, all subsequent filing s specific ally indicate that that f iling-15-

“ c a nc e ls” theon e imm e diate ly pr e c e din g it. Al so , indis c us sin g the se su bs e qu e nt f ili ng s inhis Affida vit (filed in support of the Consumer Advoc ate’ s position), Robert T. Buc kner, a Reg ulatory Analy st with the Consum er A dvocate , does not state that B ellSouth “ext ended, ” “revised,’ or “ame nded” its existi ng tariff s. Rather, he ref

ers t o t h ese subse quent filing s as instance s in which “B ellSouth

filed a tariff

” (e mphasis added) . Although the eff ect of the filing of t hese new tarif fs was to ext end the e ffe ctive date of the ex isting t ariff s, from the evidenc e before us, we c onclude that the sup p l emental filings ar e new tariff s. Acc ording ly , we f

ind that the tariff

s at issue in this appeal
e xpir e d b y

the ir ow n te rm s d uring thepe nd e nc y of thi s a pp e a l.
The Consumer Advoc ate a rg ues that, eve n if this Court were to find that the tariffs ha ve expired by

their own terms, the appeals are not moot because they meet at lea st two of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine. We will addre ss eac h of the Consumer Advoc ate’ s contentions in turn.
The Consumer Advoc ate f irst asserts that the c onsolidated appe als prese n t a justicia ble issue that is likely to r epeat y et evade revie w. Whil e Tenne ssee courts re cog nize the “ca pable of repe tition y et evading review ” ex ception to the mootness doctrine , State e x rel. McCorm ick v. Burson , 894 S.W .2d 739, 742 (Tenn. Ct. App.1994), a s discussed by this Court, i n Alliance for Native Am erican Ind ian Rights in Te nne sse e

, I nc . v . N ic e ly , No. M 2002-02555-COA- R3-CV, 2005 WL 1111192 (Tenn. Ct. App. May

10, 2005), perm
. app. denie d (Tenn. O ct. 17, 2005), c ourts will invoke the “ca pable of repe tition y et evading r eview” exception to the mootness doctrine only in exceptional
c a se s, to w it:

Partie s r e qu e sti ng a c ou rt to i nv ok e thee xce pti on mus t de mon str a te (1) a rea sonable e x pectation that the official a cts that p ro v o k ed the litigation will oc cur ag ain, (2) a risk that eff ective judicia l remedie s cannot be provided in the event that the official acts re occur , and (3) that the same complaining party will be prejudice d by

the offic ial act when it r e o c c u r s
. A me r e th e o r e ti c a l p o s s ib il ity th a t an a c t m ig ht
reoc cur is not suffic ient to invoke the “c apable of re p etition y et e va din g re vie w” e xce pti on. Rathe r, “ the remus t bea ‘r e a so na ble
e xpe c tatio n’ or

a ‘d e mon str a te d p ro ba

bil it y ’ that th e sa me controve rsy

will recur

involving the same complaining party .” Mur phy v. Hun t , 455 U.S. 478, 482, 102 S.C t. 1181, 1184, 71 L .E d. 2d35 3 ( 19 82 ); 1 Ron a ld D . Ro tun da & John E. No wa

k, Tr e a tis e on Constit utional L aw § 2.13, at 37 (3d ed. Supp.2005).
Id . at *4 (footnotes omitted).
At the time that the tariff s at issue in this ca s e were broug ht beforethe TRA, the Ge nera l Assembly had not ena cted T.C.A. §65- 37-103 (Supp. 2005). Consequently , at that time, incumbent telephone c ompanies such as Be llSout h wer e required to submit i ts bundled offe ring s to the TRA, and the TRA ha d the power , upon either w ritten complai n t o r i t s own initiative, to, among othe r things, hear an d determine whether such tarif

fs wer e re asonable . Wit h the ena ctment of T.C.A.-16-

§65-37-103 ( Supp. 2005) , which became eff ective May 28, 2005, the Gene ral Asse mbly remove d bundled offe ring s (such as the ones at issue in the instant a ppeal) from the jurisdiction of the TRA. Con se qu e ntl y , s inc e May 28 , 2 00 5, inc umb e nt t e le ph on e c omp anies no lon g e r mus t pr e se nt the se bu n d l e d o f

f e r i n g s t o t h e T R A

. C u rr e n t l y , t h e T R A m a y r e v i e w t h e s e b u n d l e d o f f e r i n g s on lyin response to a prope rly

filed complaint alleging price discrimination, as prohibit ed byTenne ssee law , or anti-c ompetitive prac tices re g arding th e p rovision of retail telecommunications servic es. See T.C.A. §65-37-103( e) ( Supp. 2005). I n light of the new legislation, t he actions of the TRA, to which the Consumer Advocate takes issue in this appeal, arenot capa ble of re petition, since these ty pes of bundled offe ring s will no longer be pres en t ed t o t he TRA. B eca use the TRA no long er ha s reg ulatory

jurisdiction to require tariffing of bundles or co m b inations of products or se rvice s, the question remains whe ther the Consumer Advoc ate ha s any other a dminist rative or

judicial reme dies in wh ic h it may pu rs ue the qu e sti on of wh e the r an d to w hat e xten t th e fe de ral r e sa le re qu ir e me nts apply to such bundles or c ombinations.

Be causethe Tenne ssee Ge nera l A s sembly has, by the ena ctment of T.C.A. §65-37- 103 (Supp. 2005), re moved these ty p es of bundled off ering s from the jurisdiction of the TRA, any rec ourse the Consumer

Advocate may have must be found in the federal are na. Howeve r, under the Ac t, s uc h r e c ou rs e do e s e xist. 47 U. S.C. §2 07 (2 00 4) pr ov ide s th a t:

Any person claiming to be damag ed by any common car

rier subje ct to the provisions of this chapt er m ay eit her make complaint to the Commi ssion as herei n af

t er provided for , or may

bring suit for the
rec overy of the damag es for

which such c ommon carri er m ay be liable under the provisions of this chapter, in any district court of the United States of compe tent jurisdiction; b u t s uch per son shall not ha ve theri g ht t o p ur su e bo th s uc h r e me die s.
F urthe rm or e , 4 7 U .S. C. § 20 8 p ro vid e s, in r e le vant p art , th a t:

(a ) A ny pe rs on , any

bo dy po lit ic , or mun ic ipal or g a nizatio n, or State commission, complaining of anything done or omitted to be doneby any common car

rier subje ct to this chapter, in c ontrave ntio n o f the provisions the reof

, may apply

to said Commi ssion by

petition which shall briefly

state the fac ts, w here upon a statement of the c omplaint thus ma de shall be forwa rded by the Commi ssion to s u ch co m mon car rier, who shall be called upon to satisfy the complaint or to answe r the same in writing within a re asonable time t o b e spec ified by the Com mis sio n. I f s uc h c omm on c arrie r w ith in the tim e sp e c if ie d s ha ll make r epar ation fo r t h e injury alleg ed to have been c aused, the
c omm on c arrie r sha ll be re lie ve d of lia bil ity to the c omp la inant o nly for the pa rticular violation of law thus complained of. If such c arrier
or car riers shall not satisfy the complaint within the time spe cified or the re sh a ll app e ar to be a ny re a so na bleg ro un d f

or inv e sti g a tin g sa id-17- c o mp lain t, it s h a ll b e th e d u ty o f th e Co mm is s io n to in v e s tiga te the
matte rs c omp la ine d o f i n s uc h mann e r and by su c h me a ns a s it sh a ll deem pr oper. N o complaint shall at any time be dismissed because of theabs e nc e of

dir e c t dama g e to the c omp la inant. Clearly , under the Act, the Consumer A dvocate has an avenue for review of the r esale obligations of incumbent tele phone ca rrier s on these bundled pr oducts. Consequently , and in light of the fa ct that T.C.A. §65-37-103 pr eclude s the possibili ty that the re sale que stion on bundled tariffs will be broug ht beforethe TRA, we c onclude that the c onsolida t ed ca s es before us do not fa ll under the “ca pable of repe tition y et eva ding r eview” exception to the mootness doctrine.
The Consumer Advoc ate nex t asserts that the appeals befor e us are not moot because they involve “a matter of public inter est and c oncern.” The applicability of the public interest exception to the mootness doc trine wa s discussed by this Court i n Do c ke ry v . D oc ke ry , 559 S.W .2d 952 (Tenn. Ct. Ap p. 19 77 ), to w it:

“ Th e de c isi on a s to wh e the r to re ta in a moo t c a se in o rd e r t o

pass on a question of public interest lies in the discretion of the c ourt a ndg e ne rally

a c ou rt wi ll d e te rm inea

moo t qu e sti on of

pu bli c importance if it fee ls that the value of i ts determination as a prec edent is suffi cient to overcome the r ule ag ainst considering moot questions.” 5 Am.J ur.2d, Appe al and Er ror, s 768, pp. 210-211.

B e c au s e th e g e n e r a l ru le is to d is mi s s a n ap p e a l w h ic h has be c omemoo t, w iththere te nti on of su c h c a se s inthepu bli c int e re st being the exception to the rule, courts ar e inclined to re fuse dismissal
on ly un der e xcepti on al ci rcum st ances whe re t he p ub li c in ter estc le a rl y app e ars
. “It is not e asy to state any hard and fast ru l es b ywhich qu e sti on s w hic h a

reof su ff ic ie nt p ub lic int e re st t o ju sti fy re fu sa l to dismiss an appe al which has become moot

. . . may be distinguished fr om q ue sti on s w hic h a

reno t of su c h in te re st, sin c e thematte r r e sts g e n e r a ll y inth e d is c r e ti o n o f

th e ap p e ll a tec o u rt i n e a c h p articular
c a se .” 13 2 A .L .R. 11 88 -1 18 9. Ho we ve r, thesta rting point

is t o de te rm ine the me a nin g of “ pu bli c int e re st. ” Ge ne rally , pu bli c int e re st “means something more than that the individ u al m em bers of the public areinterested in the dec i s i o n of the a ppeal f rom motives of curiosity or because it may bear upon their i ndividual rig hts or serve
as a g uide for their future conduct a s individuals.”132 A.L .R. 1189. Th e ty pe s o f i ss ues th e co urts a relik e ly to r e so lvede sp ite the ir mootness are : ( 1 ) q u e s t i o n s t h a tar e l i k e l y t o ar i s e f r e q u e n t l y;-18- (2 ) q ue sti on s in vo lvi ng theva lid ity or c on str uc tio n o f s tatut e s; (3 ) q ue sti on s r e latin g to e le c tio ns ; (4) que stions relating to tax ation, reve nue, or g overnme ntal financ ial
a ff a ir s; (5 ) q ue sti on s r e latin g to the c on du c t of pu bli c of fi c e rs or bo die s; (6 ) qu e sti on s inv olv ing the g ov e rn me ntal re g ulatio n of pu bli c utilit ies; and (7) que stions which mus t nece ssarily become moot before the appe al can behear d. See the Annotation at 132 A.L .R. 1185-1190 for case s from diffe rent j u r i s d i c t i o n s s u p p o rt i n g e a c h c a t e g o ry.
I n thi s State a moo te d iss ue is w ith in the pu bli c int e re st if “ it is o ne of great publi c imp orta nc e , a s w he reit i nv olv e s a determination of public rig hts or interests under conditions which may be repeated at any

time.” Mc Canl

e ss v . Kl e in , su pr a 188 S.W .2d at 747.
Id . at 954-55.

Her e, the Consumer A dvocate asserts that the appea ls fall within the public interes t e xc e p ti on beca use they involve three of the Doc kery exception examples. S pecif ically , the Consumer Advocate contends that the issues involve the “g overnmental reg ulation of public utilit ies,” the “validity or construction of statutes,” and issues that are “likely to a rise fre quently ”. W e h ave pr e vio us ly

a ddre sse d th e qu e sti on of wh e the r the iss ues raise d inthi s a pp e a l arelik e ly

to a ri se fre quently

and h av e d et ermined that, with the enac tment of T.C.A. § 65-37-103, the TRA will no longe r havejurisdiction over t hese bundled offe ring s or t he question of the r esale obligations arising the re fr om. Th e Con su me r A dv oc a te ’s arg ume nt that th e se app e a ls c on ta in matte rs of pu bli c int e re st be c aus e the y

inv olv e the“ va lid ity

or con st ruct io n of s tatut e s” is l ike wi se te nu ou s. Th is c a se inv olv e s n o is su e of statuto ry c on str uc tio n. T. C.A . § 65 -3 7- 10 3 is c le ar o n it s f a c e . T he statut e unambig uously

states that the TRA “shall not assert reg ulatory jurisdiction over the retail off ering of combinations or bundles of products or se rvice s....” Howeve r, even if we c oncedethat the issues befor e us involve the construction and application of fede ral statutes and/or rules and order s of the F CC, theiss ue wo uldbe wh e the r, or to wh a t exte nt, tho se fe de ral st a tut e s, ru le s, a ndor de rs app ly to bundled offe ring s such as those g iving rise to this appeal. F ollowing the e nactment of T.C.A. § 65 -3 7- 10 3, the se iss ue s a

reno lon g e r w ith in the state ’s jurisd ic tio n b ut, a s d isc us se d a bo ve , w ou ld be pr op e rl y

raise d inthe fe de ral sy ste m. Th e Con su me r A dv oc a te fu rthe r a sse rt s th a t th e se app e a ls
aren o t m o o t b e c a u s ethe y inv olv e qu e sti on s c on c e rn ing theg ov e rn me nt r e g ulatio n o f p ub lic uti lit ie s. Altho u g h w e c o n c e d e th a t th is c a s e d o e s in v o lv e g o v e r n me n tal r e g u lati o n o f p u b li c u ti li ti e s , that fac t, in and of itself, is not sufficient to invoke the public inter est exception to the mootness doctrine. Under the l aw, as it exis ted at the t ime of t he int roduction of these tariffs to the TRA, the TRA ha d jurisdiction to determine whe ther, an d t o what extent, Be llSout h was oblig ated to off er the telecommunications services c ontained in the off ering s for re sale. B efor e the e nactment of T.C.A.-19-

§ 65-37-103, the T RA exercised its jurisdiction in determining that the t hree tariff s at i ssue her e, and other similar tarif

fs, could be of

fer ed without resa le. Howe ver, w ith the enac tmen t o f t he new leg islation , t el ecommunications providers have no ong oing oblig ation to submittariff s or other reg ulatory filings with the TR A conc erning bundled produc ts or offe ring s. Consequently , with the expiration of the o ff

er i n gs, comes the e limination of any possibili ty

that the circ umstances underlying the se appe als will be repe ated in futurematters bef ore the TRA. Thus, any

ruling based on the fa cts of the c onsolidated appe als would be mer ely theore tical in nature and would have no be ari ng wh a tso e ve r on ne w qu e sti on s or dis pu te s c on c e rn ing bu nd le d of fe ri ng s a ndtheTRA ’s ro le in r e g ulatin g sa me be c aus e theTRA ’s ro le ha s b e e n le g isl a tiv e ly re mov e d in the se ty

pe s o f c a se s. It is well settled that courts will decline to provide judicial relief in case s that do not involve ge nuine
e xistin g c on tr ov e rs ie s r e qu iring thea dju dic a tio n o f p re se nt rig hts , Sta te e x re l. L e wis v . St

ate , 208 Tenn. 534, 537, 347 S.W.2d 47, 48 (1961); Ford Consum er Fin

. Co. v. Clay , 984 S.W .2d 615, 616 (Tenn. Ct. App.1998), and will likewise decline to re nder de clar atory judgme nts to de c id ethe oretica l question s o r re n d er a dvisory opinions. Sta te v . Br

own & Wil

lia mson T

ob ac c o Co rp ., 18 S.W .3d 186, 193 (Tenn.2000)

. I n light of the new leg islation and the expiration of the tariff s involved, and for

the fore g oing
re a so ns , w e fi ndthat th e se c on so lid ated a pp e a ls a remoo t. C on se qu e ntl y , w e dis mis s th e app e a ls. Costs of t hese a

ppeals a re a ssessed ag ainst the Appellant, The Consumer Advocate Division of the O f f i c e o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a n di t s s u r e t y.

__________________________________________ W. F RA NK

CRA WF OR D, PRE SI DINGJUDG E, W.S.