Opinion ID: 186282
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Merger Order

Text: 6 For purposes of the present petition, the FCC does not claim that SBC's obligation to provide shared transport arises directly from the unbundling provisions of the Act. The FCC claims instead that the obligation arises from an order it issued that conditionally approved a merger between SBC and Ameritech, Inc., another ILEC. See In re Applications of Ameritech Corp. and SBC Communications, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 14712 (1999), vacated in part on other grounds, Ass'n of Communications Entrs. v. FCC, 235 F.3d 662 (D.C.Cir.2001) ( Merger Order ). As both Ameritech and SBC held FCC licenses, the FCC was authorized to approve the merger only if it found that the public interest, convenience and necessity [would have been] served by it. 47 U.S.C. § 310(d). On that question, the FCC took the position that the merger would have anticompetitive effects not outweighed by its benefits and therefore was not in the public interest. Accordingly, the parties engaged in extensive negotiations so that they could explore the possibility of [SBC and Ameritech] strengthening their application by agreeing to certain voluntary public interest commitments. Merger Order ¶ 43. 7 Those negotiations resulted in a series of conditions on the merger of the two companies, issued by the FCC on October 8, 1999. One of the conditions required the merged entity (which, for convenience, we simply call SBC unless the context shows otherwise) to provide shared transport to CLECs in the states formerly served by Ameritech. That condition specifically provided: 8 Within 12 months of the Merger Closing Date (but subject to state commission approval and the terms of any future Commission orders regarding the obligation to provide unbundled local switching and shared transport), SBC/Ameritech shall offer shared transport in the SBC/Ameritech Service Area within the Ameritech States under terms and conditions, other than rate structure and price, that are substantially similar to (or more favorable than) the most favorable terms SBC/Ameritech offers to telecommunications carriers in Texas as of August 27, 1999. Subject to state commission approval and the terms of any future Commission orders regarding the obligation to provide unbundled local switching and shared transport, SBC/Ameritech shall continue to make this offer, at a minimum, until the earlier of (i) the date the Commission issues a final order in its UNE remand proceeding ... finding that shared transport is not required to be provided by SBC/Ameritech in the relevant geographic area, or (ii) the date of a final, nonappealable judicial decision providing that shared transport is not required to be provided by SBC/Ameritech in the relevant geographical area. 9 Merger Order, App. C ¶ 56. The FCC explained that paragraph 56 obligates Ameritech to provide shared transport until a final order of the Commission or a final and nonappealable judicial decision determines that SBC/Ameritech is not required to provide shared transport in all or a portion of its operating territory. Merger Order ¶ 396. Shared transport, the conditions defined, meant the function of shared transport as defined in a previous FCC order. Id. App. C ¶ 55. 10 The apparent reason for imposing this obligation to provide shared transport in the former Ameritech states-Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin-was to address Ameritech's prior reluctance to offer unbundled access to shared transport services. SBC, in contrast, had previously provided CLECs with access to such service, for example, in Texas; hence, the merger agreement defined the merged entity's obligation to provide such service by reference to a state SBC already had served. 11