Opinion ID: 503750
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Different Pricing Methodologies

Text: 57 The first of four justifications that may be extracted from the FCC's opaque discussion rests on the allegedly different ways in which the two sets of charges are devised. According to the FCC, [d]ifferences between actual SNFA charges and particular special access rates appear to be reasonably related to the fact that these charges and rates are developed according to entirely different methodologies. Special Access Order at p 58, J.A. 801. It would be unreasonable, the FCC declares, to require that charges covering different offerings and developed according to different methodologies be made equal. Id. at p 58 n. 97, J.A. 801. 58 Setting aside the fact that the FCC neglects to say precisely how those methodologies differ and why those differences should cause charges to diverge in this case, the problem with the FCC's argument is that it leaves open the fundamental question why the use of entirely different methodologies should be permitted under section 202(a) if they lead to radically unequal charges for like services or facilities. 10 The FCC is required by statute to approve special access tariffs only so long as they conform to the dictates of section 202(a). If certain tariffs are discriminatory, it is not enough to point to the fact that they were computed in accordance with dissimilar methodologies. The FCC has no choice but to see that the terms of section 202(a) are observed, even if that entails some modification of the methodologies used to derive the proposed charges. 59 The FCC's observations that the facilities leased under the SNFAs are unique, id. at p 58, J.A. 800, that these arrangements for sharing multifunction equipment were approved by the District Court after review by the Justice Department, id. at p 58 n. 96, J.A. 800, and that they were a practical necessity, because the only alternative was to require either AT & T or the BOCs needlessly to construct duplicate facilities, id. at p 59, J.A. 802, are completely beside the point. Although the District Court approved the SNFAs as a means for dividing extant multifunction facilities between AT & T and the BOCs, it did not examine actual leases or compare charges thereunder with any other set of tariffs. That responsibility fell to the FCC, whose standards are set forth in the Communications Act. 11 The FCC cannot disregard its statutory mandate merely because the District Court found that the concept of dividing property pursuant to the SNFAs furthered the public interest. Id. at p 59, J.A. 802. 12 60