Opinion ID: 168880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Qwest's Contrary Arguments

Text: 41 Qwest valiantly attempts to persuade us to adopt a very narrow reading of the Act and the FCC's precedents. It conveniently ignores the word relating in the FCC's interpretation of the Act, asserting that [i]f an agreement does not involve these Section 251 [ (b) and (c)] duties, the Section 252 process cannot be triggered and the agreement, as a matter of law, cannot be an `interconnection agreement' subject to the Section 252 filing requirement. Qwest Utah Br. at 39-40 (emphasis added). In support of this reading, Qwest advances four main arguments, all of which we find unpersuasive. 9 42
43 First, Qwest argues that the introductory clause of § 252(a) excludes the QPP Agreement from the filing requirement. According to § 252(a), [u]pon receiving a request for interconnection, services, or network elements pursuant to section 251, an ILEC may negotiate an interconnection agreement, which must be submitted to the state commission. Qwest argues that pursuant to 251 means that the CLEC must have requested access to an element that the ILEC has a duty to provide under § 251(c) and that the ultimate agreement must implement [a] Section 251 requirement. Qwest Utah Br. at 46-47. 44 In support of this position, Qwest points to a recent federal district court decision from Montana. Qwest Corp. v. Schneider, No. CV-04-053-H-CSO, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17110 (D. Mont. June 5, 2005). In Schneider, Qwest appealed from a decision by the Montana Public Service Commission that asserted jurisdiction over a line sharing agreement between Qwest and Covad. Id. at -2. The parties in Schneider —like the parties in this case—agreed that the agreement was for access to an element that was not a required unbundled network element under § 251(c)(3). See id. at . Thus, the court was confronted with the legal question of whether § 252's filing obligation could apply to elements that were not required by § 251. In holding that the agreement was not subject to filing under § 252, the court interpreted pursuant to section 251 to limit the filing obligation to those agreements that contain section 251 obligations. Id. at  (emphasis added). It also held that its interpretation was consistent with the language ongoing obligation relating to section 251(b) or (c) in the FCC's Declaratory Order. See id. at . 45 Qwest argues that the state commissions reached the opposite result after considering that exchange carriers who receive requests pursuant to section 251 may negotiate agreements without regard to the standards set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of section 251. 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1). Qwest asserts that the commissions believed that this phrase freed their approval authority from the specific provisions of those subsections, and it urges us to interpret the phrase as permitting the parties to reach terms not required by § 251 (for example, a different pricing method) but only with respect to the network elements included in § 251(c)(3). An alternative understanding of the statute, Qwest contends, leaves no practical limit on the agreements over which state commissions would have jurisdiction. Qwest Utah Br. at 47. 46 However, Qwest's reading of the without regard clause does not confirm its interpretation of pursuant to in § 252(a). The plain language of § 252 directs that when an ILEC has received a request for network access as described in § 251(b) and (c)—resale, number portability, dialing parity, access to rights-of-way, reciprocal compensation, interconnection, unbundled access, or collocation—it may negotiate an agreement for one or more of these means of network access. See 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1). The statute does not say that the agreement may only provide what is described in § 251(b) and (c). Instead, it must be given a broader reading that is consistent with the FCC's understanding of interconnection, services, or network elements. 10 Id. § 252(a). The most logical reading of the statute is that the filing obligation in § 252 covers agreements reached following a request for interconnection—that is, the physical linking of two networks, First Local Competition Order, 11 F.C.C.R. at 15514—or network elements—that is, facilit[ies] or equipment used in the provision of telecommunications service, 47 U.S.C. § 153(29) 11 —or services. Qwest's reading is too narrow, both because it would exclude an agreement that contained an ongoing obligation relating to section 251(b) or (c) if it did not specifically include a required element under those subsections and because it would exclude an agreement that contained a required element but was initiated by a request for a non-required element. 12 47 It is notable that Congress chose three terms with broad meanings—interconnection, services or network elements—rather than the more specific and narrow language it used in § 251. Qwest argues that Congress used the term network elements when it meant unbundled network elements as that term is used in § 251. Adopting this interpretation would require us to ignore the word unbundled in contravention of the familiar principle of statutory construction that courts should give effect, if possible, to every word that Congress has used in a statute. Conn. Dep't of Income Maintenance v. Heckler, 471 U.S. 524, 530 n. 15, 105 S.Ct. 2210, 85 L.Ed.2d 577 (1985). This we refuse to do. 48 Sections 251 and 252 were designed to address different concerns, and Congress prescribed different criteria by which to judge compliance with the obligations they impose. While the mandatory provision of a network element under § 251(c)(3) is triggered by a finding that a lack of access impairs a CLEC's ability to provide services, see 47 U.S.C. § 251(d)(2)(B), a state commission can only reject a voluntarily negotiated agreement if it finds that the agreement is discriminatory or inconsistent with the public interest, see id. § 252(e)(2)(A)(i)-(ii). Thus, § 251 obligations reflect Congress's concern for the interests of the requesting carrier, whereas the § 252 filing requirement is driven by concerns for the public interest and the interests of other non-party carriers. Congress sensibly recognized that the class of network elements whose non-provision would impair a CLEC's ability to enter the market is substantially narrower than the class of network elements whose provision on favorable terms could discriminate or impact the public interest. Accordingly, we conclude that Congress used unbundled network elements in § 251(c)(3) and network elements in § 252(a) because it intended to convey different meanings in those two sections. 49 It is also significant for the purposes of this case that switching and shared transport are undoubtedly network elements, 13 although they are not included in the category of network elements that must be offered on an unbundled basis pursuant to § 251(c)(3) and § 251(d)(2). Switching and shared transport do not qualify as unbundled network elements under § 251(c)(3), but we need not look to § 251(c)(3) for a definition of network element because Congress defined the term in § 153(29). The TRRO leaves no doubt that the FCC considers switching and shared transport to be network elements, and that understanding is entirely consistent with the definition given in § 153(29). 50 Therefore, we are not persuaded by Qwest's argument that the QPP Agreement was not subject to filing under § 252 because it was not negotiated following a request made pursuant to section 251. Qwest does not challenge the FCC's determination that agreements must be filed if they contain an ongoing obligation relating to section 251(b) or (c), and the Commission's use of the word relating is entirely consistent with Congress's use of terms that are similar to, but broader than, those found in § 251. Schneider 's holding that agreements containing an ongoing obligation relating to section 251(b) or (c) are those agreements that contain section 251 obligations is entirely untenable. See Schneider, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at -21 (emphasis added). The practical limit that Qwest seeks comes not from the pursuant to clause but from the FCC's use of the word relating. Thus, not all agreements between carriers must be filed; rather, only those containing an ongoing obligation relating to section 251(b) or (c) are subject to § 252's filing requirement.
51 Qwest next contends that the range of negotiated agreements subject to filing is coextensive with the range of arbitrated agreements that must be filed pursuant to § 252. Because a CLEC may only compel arbitration of issues that the ILEC is under a duty to negotiate pursuant to § 251(c)(1), the interconnection agreements that result from arbitration necessarily include only the issues mandated by § 251(b) and (c). See, e.g., MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 298 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir.2002). Qwest argues that it would be strange to interpret interconnection agreement to cover a broader spectrum of issues when the agreement is generated by negotiation than when it is created by arbitration. 52 We disagree. It makes perfect sense that the commission may only compel an ILEC to arbitrate with respect to services that it is under a duty to provide. Arbitration is an option specifically designed to address situations where an ILEC is under a duty to provide a service but cannot reach an agreement with a CLEC; deadlock would violate the ILEC's statutory duty to provide the element, but allowing no alternative would permit the CLEC to force the ILEC to accept unfavorable terms in order to avoid violating its duty. When negotiations fail, arbitration must be broad enough to allow the ILEC to fulfill its statutory obligation. However, the state commissions cannot create a duty to provide services not required by the statute, so their arbitration power cannot extend beyond the four corners of § 251. 53 Negotiation, on the other hand, has no such constraints. A negotiated agreement may cover any number of issues, some required by § 251 and others not. Negotiated agreements may include more issues than arbitrated agreements, but both can still be considered interconnection agreements under § 252. Nothing in the statute suggests that the term interconnection agreement covers a field precisely as broad as the arbitration option and no more so. The fact that arbitrated agreements are confined to § 251 duties in no way limits the scope of negotiated agreements that are subject to filing under § 252. 54
55 Pursuant to § 252(e)(6), federal courts are empowered to review determinations by state commissions concerning interconnection agreements to ensure that the agreement or statement meets the requirements of section 251 of this title and this section. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6). Qwest argues that [i]f Congress had intended to give state commissions the authority to review and approve agreements that do not contain the duties listed in Section 251, it would not have limited judicial review in this manner. Qwest Utah Br. at 42. The Supreme Court has made clear, however, that district courts have broad federal question jurisdiction to review determinations made by state commissions, including decisions made wholly independent of § 251. Verizon Md., 535 U.S. at 642, 122 S.Ct. 1753. Furthermore, the FCC has ruled that state commissions have approval authority over any agreement that contains ongoing obligations relating to § 251 duties. Thus, even if Qwest is correct that Congress intended the scope of judicial review to be coextensive with the scope of the state commissions' authority over interconnection agreements, it is clear that the federal courts are empowered to review a decision under § 252 that an agreement contains ongoing obligations related to § 251 duties.
56 Finally, Qwest urges us to rely on the QPP Agreement's self-characterization as an effort to fulfill Qwest's obligations under 47 U.S.C. § 271. Of course, we determine de novo—without regard to the parties' stated intent—whether the QPP Agreement is an interconnection agreement that must be filed pursuant to § 252. Moreover, Qwest's argument is unconvincing because the requirements of § 271 and § 251 are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the competitive checklist in § 271 specifically requires Qwest to comply with the obligations in § 251(c)(2) and (3). See id. § 271(c)(2)(B). All interconnection agreements that fulfill the duties imposed by § 251(c)(2) or (3) necessarily fulfill competitive checklist obligations, as well. The QPP Agreement may well have been intended to satisfy the requirements of § 271, but this has no bearing on whether the agreement should also be considered an interconnection agreement under § 252. 57 We likewise reject Qwest's contention that the Colorado Commission erred in concluding that § 271 included an independent filing requirement. See Qwest Colo. Br. at 65-67. This is a spurious interpretation of the Commission's order; the Commission merely noted that the filing of interconnection agreements under § 252 assists it in discharging its § 271(c) obligation to consult with the FCC regarding a BOC's compliance with the competitive checklist. See In re: the Application for Approval of Interconnection Agreement Between U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc., and MCImetro Access Transmission Servs., LLC, Docket No. 96A-366T, Decision No. C04-1349, Order Approving Interconnection Agreement (P.U.C. Colo. Nov. 16, 2004). The Commission made its holding very clear: 58 We do not accept Qwest's interpretation of the Declaratory Order. We believe that the FCC set forth guidelines as to what constitutes an interconnection agreement, and intends that state commissions apply those guidelines in determining what agreements need to be filed for approval. We believe that the QPP Agreement is an interconnection agreement. As argued by MCImetro, the agreement, which relates to mass market switching and shared transport, is an agreement for network elements, even if they are provided under § 271 of the Act. The QPP Agreement meets the criteria set forth in the FCC Declaratory Order . . . for evaluating what is an interconnection agreement. It sets forth ongoing obligations that relate to interconnection and unbundled network elements. As an interconnection agreement, it must be filed under § 252(e)(1). Indeed, we believe that all agreements which set forth ongoing obligations which relate to interconnection and unbundled network elements must be filed with this Commission pursuant to § 252(e)(1). 59 Id. at 8. We wholly agree. 60 AFFIRMED.