Source: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/10-313/
Timestamp: 2014-07-31 05:26:17
Document Index: 548195702

Matched Legal Cases: ['§251', '§251', '§251', '§251', '§251', '§251', '§251']

Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. :: 564 U.S. ___ (2011) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center Justia.comFind a LawyerLegal AnswersLawMore ▾Justia BlogVerdictLaw Blog DirectoryLegal FormsUS Law US Supreme Court Cases Federal Cases US Constitution US Code Federal RegulationsFederal DocketsState CasesState Codes & StatutesTrademarksPatentsCompany Legal ProfilesMarketing ServicesSign InSearchJustia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 564 › Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. › Syllabus
NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe NowTalk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.564 U.S. ___ (2011)Annotate this CaseJustia Opinion Summary
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESTALK AMERICA, INC. v. MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE CO. dba AT&T MICHIGANcertiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuitNo. 10–313. Argued March 30, 2011—Decided June 9, 2011The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs)—i.e., providers of local telephone service—to share their physical networks with competitive LECs at cost-based rates in two ways relevant here. First, 47 U. S. C. §251(c)(3) requires an incumbent LEC to lease “on an unbundled basis”—i.e., a la carte—network elements specified by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to allow a competitor to create its own network without having to build every element from scratch. In identifying those elements, the FCC must consider whether access is “necessary” and whether failing to provide it would “impair” the competitor’s provision of service. §251(d)(2). Second, §251(c)(2) mandates that incumbent LECs “provide … interconnection” between their networks and competitive LECs’ to ensure that a competitor’s customers can call the incumbent’s customers, and vice versa. The interconnection duty is independent of the unbundling rules and not subject to impairment analysis.
In the Remand Order’s wake, respondent AT&T notified competitive LECs that it would no longer provide entrance facilities at cost-based rates for either backhauling or interconnection, but would instead charge higher rates. Competitive LECs complained to the Michigan Public Service Commission that AT&T was unlawfully abrogating their §251(c)(2) right to cost-based interconnection. The Michigan Public Service Commission agreed and ordered AT&T to continue providing entrance facilities for interconnection at cost-based rates. AT&T challenged the ruling. Relying on the Remand Order,the Federal District Court ruled in AT&T’s favor. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, declining to defer to the FCC’s argument that the order did not change incumbent LECs’ interconnection obligations, including the obligation to lease entrance facilities for interconnection.Held: The FCC has advanced a reasonable interpretation of its regulations—i.e., that to satisfy its duty under §251(c)(2), an incumbent LEC must make its existing entrance facilities available to competitors at cost-based rates if the facilities are to be used for interconnection—and this Court defers to the FCC’s views. Pp. 6–16. (a) No statute or regulation squarely addresses the question. Pp. 6–7. (b) Absent an unambiguous statute or regulation, the Court turns to the FCC’s interpretation of its regulations in its amicus brief. See, e.g.,Chase Bank USA, N. A. v. McCoy, 562 U. S. ___, ___. The FCC proffers a three-step argument why its regulations require AT&T to provide access at cost-based rates to existing entrance facilities for interconnection purposes. Pp. 7–10.
(d) Nor is there any other “reason to suspect that the [FCC’s] in-terpretation does not reflect the agency’s fair and considered judgment on the matter in question.” Auer, supra, at 462. AT&T incorrectly suggeststhat the FCC is attempting to require under §251(c)(2) what courts have prevented it from requiring under §251(c)(3) and what the FCC itself said was not required in the Remand Order. Pp. 12–16.597 F. 3d 370, reversed. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Kagan, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion. Together with No. 10–329, Isiogu et al. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. dba AT&T Michigan, also on certiorari to the same court.