Opinion ID: 618656
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: NIDs and Block Terminals

Text: A network interface device (NID) is a small boxed device connecting the telephone network to the inside wires of a house or other premises. Similar to an NID, a block terminal connects the telephone network plant to the inside wires of a large building. Ground rods are metal shafts driven into the ground that carry current away from the telephone network in the case of an electrical surge. Ground rods are typically connected to NIDs and block terminals, and are thus factored into the costs of those two network elements. The underlying dispute between PRTC and WorldNet on this issue concerned whether the model should assume either (a) that PRTC will install its own new ground rods with all its NIDs and block terminals, or (b) that PRTC should use existing ground rods when they have already been installed by power companies or cable providers. PRTC presented evidence to the arbitrator that its practice was to install its own ground rods with all NIDs and block terminals, instead of relying on non-company equipment that may be moved. WorldNet presented evidence that ground rods needed to be installed just 66% of the time for NIDs and 10% of the time for block terminals. The arbitrator adopted WorldNet's proposal, finding that in a least cost/most efficient network, PRTC should share existing ground rods and that its policy of installing new ground rods in all cases was unreasonable. The Board overturned the arbitrator's decision, holding that the record does not provide sufficient support for WorldNet's proposals and therefore the arbitrator erred in adopting them without sufficient evidence. The Board found that without contradictory persuasive evidence, PRTC's safety concerns must prevail. The district court reversed the Board's decision, reinstating the arbitrator's determination. WorldNet III, 707 F.Supp.2d at 195. The district court reasoned that the Board's decision was merely a reconsideration of the evidence. Id. at 194. The court noted that the Board did not suggest that the arbitrated solution conflicted with the statute, Puerto Rico laws, Board rules, or Board policy, but rather stated that the arbitrator incorrectly weighed the evidence.  Id. at 195. Thus, the Board exceeded its authority under WorldNet I. WorldNet III, 707 F.Supp.2d at 195 (citing WorldNet I, 497 F.3d at 7). The court noted that when a state board delegates its duties to an arbitrator, it cannot overturn the arbitrator's solution simply because `if framing the agreement itself it would follow different policies based on `ad hoc preferences.' Id. (quoting WorldNet I, 497 F.3d at 8). With respect to NIDs and Block Terminals, the entirety of the Board's resolution and explanation is as follows: The record does not provide sufficient support for WorldNet's proposals for use of ground rods and we conclude that the Arbitrator erred in adopting those proposals without sufficient evidence. We find that, without contradictory persuasive evidence, PRTC's safety concerns must prevail. The Arbitrator is overruled and PRTC's proposal is accepted. This explanation does not mention either (1) any inconsistency with the federal Act, or (2) any conflict with Puerto Rico statutes, the Board's rules, or the Board's general policy determinations. There is no apparent conflict with Sections 251 or 252(d) of the Act. Nor does either PRTC or the Board articulate how the arbitrator's decision conflicted with Puerto Rico statutes, the Board's rules, or the Board's general policy. Therefore, as persuasively found by the district court, the Board overruled the arbitrator simply on the basis of a reconsideration of the evidence and because it would have followed a different policy based on ad hoc preferences which is an invalid basis for the Board to overrule the arbitrator, as WorldNet I established. See 497 F.3d at 8; 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(2)(B). Because the Board's determination with respect to NIDs and Block Terminals exceeded its authority in reviewing an arbitrated ICA, the district court's reversal of the Board was proper.