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

Heading: Mixed Bundles

Text: A mixed bundle is a packaged resale product containing both telecommunications and non-telecommunications services. At issue are the appropriate wholesale rates that PRTC will charge WorldNet for products that PRTC currently retails to its own customers in mixed bundles. As a hypothetical illustration, PRTC might charge its retail customers $30 for a home phone line, $10 for cable television, and a mixed bundle consisting of both phone and cable services for a discounted retail price of $30 (a 25 percent discount). Here, the arbitrator determined that PRTC must offer each service individually to WorldNet at a price reflecting the 25 percent discount, but then also apply the parties' standard wholesale discount on top of the already-discounted mixed bundle price. PRTC challenged this double-discounting, and the Board agreed, overruling the arbitrator on this issue. The Board found that PRTC need offer only two options to WorldNet: either the wholesale discount for each individual service, or the 25 percent mixed bundle discount for the services together. In overruling the arbitrator, the Board noted that the arbitrator's mixed bundles pricing provision had established a principle of law that had not yet been considered by the Board or the FCC. The Board noted that [a]s a general matter, we continue to believe, as we did in the 2002 PRTCNewcomm arbitration, that the Arbitrator should not break new ground, but should apply principles of law that have already been established. On review, the district court examined whether the Board's reversal of the arbitrator's decision was proper. The district court opined that [i]t is not clear that the pricing provision imposed by the arbitrator was inconsistent with the Act: it may not be required by the Act, but it also may not violate the Act. WorldNet III, 707 F.Supp.2d at 184. Nonetheless, the court found that it did not need to decide whether the provision was inconsistent with the Act, because the Board may also overturn an arbitrated provision that conflicts with Board policy. See id. (citing WorldNet II, 497 F.3d at 7). The court reasoned that [i]t seems eminently reasonable for the Board to enforce a policy that the Arbitrator should not break new ground, but should apply principles of law that have already been established. Id. (internal quotation mark omitted). Because the arbitrated solution broke new ground, the district court affirmed the Board's decision. Id. Although PRTC prevailed on the mixed bundles issue, it argues that the district court was wrong to even suggest that WorldNet's mixed bundles proposal might be consistent with the Communications Act. In PRTC's view, WorldNet's proposal was clearly inconsistent with the Communications Act. WorldNet responds that since PRTC prevailed below, it is seeking an improper advisory opinion from this court. [20] On the merits, WorldNet argues that its mixed bundles proposal was not inconsistent with the Act. As a general rule, [a] party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor. Elec. Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242, 59 S.Ct. 860, 83 L.Ed. 1263 (1939). However, under some circumstances, a prevailing party may appeal a court's determination on a legal question if that determination could affect the party's rights in the future. See, e.g., id. (allowing victorious defendants in patent infringement suit to appeal to eliminate from the decree the finding that the patent, though not infringed, was valid). Here, PRTC claims that the district court's statement is affecting its rights, pointing to a recent decision by the Board in a separate ICA proceeding between PRTC and WorldNet in which the Board adopted WorldNet's mixed bundle proposal. [21] We will not address the merits of this question because there was no legal determination below at all, much less a determination that could affect PRTC's rights. The district court's language clearly expressed that it was not deciding whether WorldNet's proposal was inconsistent with the Act. Thus, the district court's statement that WorldNet's proposal may or may not be consistent with the Federal Telecommunications Act was mere dicta that could not have any binding effect for future proceedings. To rule on that question now would be a paradigmatic example of an advisory opinion. This we may not do. [22]