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

Heading: Is the QPP Agreement an Interconnection Agreement Subject to Filing?

Text: 31 The question presented in these appeals is whether the QPP Agreement is an interconnection agreement that must be filed pursuant to § 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. We apply a de novo standard when reviewing state commissions' interpretations of the Act . . ., as those decisions turn on determinations of federal law. Sw. Bell, 309 F.3d at 717; see also Atlas Tel. Co., 400 F.3d at 1260. 32 Our own statutory interpretation begins with the plain language of the Act. United States v. Saenz-Gomez, 472 F.3d 791, 793 (10th Cir.2007). We construe the words of the statute in their ordinary sense . . . giv[ing] effect, if possible, to every word of the statute. Quarles v. U.S. ex rel. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 372 F.3d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir.2004). However, given that [i]t would be a gross understatement to say that the 1996 Act is not a model of clarity. It is in many important respects a model of ambiguity or indeed even self-contradiction, Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. at 397, 119 S.Ct. 721, we must defer to reasonable FCC interpretations of the Act where they are applicable, see Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). 33 The parties agree that a contract must be filed as an interconnection agreement if it contain[s] an ongoing obligation relating to section 251(b) or (c). . . . In re Qwest, 17 F.C.C.R. at 19341 n. 26. 6 Section 251(c) imposes [t]he duty to provide, for the facilities and equipment of any requesting telecommunications carrier, interconnection with the local exchange carrier's network . . . . 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2). Interconnection is defined as the physical linking of two networks for the mutual exchange of traffic. In re Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecomms. Act of 1996 (First Local Competition Order), 11 F.C.C.R. 15499, 15514 (1996), vacated in part, People of the State of Cal. v. F.C.C., 124 F.3d 934 (8th Cir.1997), rev'd in part sub nom. AT & T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd. 525 U.S. 366, 119 S.Ct. 721, 142 L.Ed.2d 835 (1999). 7 Therefore, we must affirm if the QPP Agreement contains ongoing obligations related to the physical linking of two networks. 34 Alternatively, we must affirm if we conclude that the QPP Agreement contains an ongoing obligation relating to unbundled network elements. Section 251(c) imposes the duty to provide . . . nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point, 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3), if the failure to provide access to such network elements would impair the ability of the telecommunications carrier seeking access to provide the services that it seeks to offer, id. § 251(d)(2)(B). Congress has provided that [t]he term `network element' means a facility or equipment used in the provision of telecommunications service. Such term also includes features, functions, and capabilities that are provided by means of such facility or equipment. . . . Id. § 153(29). Accordingly, the QPP Agreement was subject to filing under § 252 if it contains an ongoing obligation relating to a facility or equipment used in the provision of telecommunications service.
35 Switches are equipment directing calls to their destination. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. at 371, 119 S.Ct. 721. Although the FCC has not given a simple and authoritative definition of the term switching, its discussion of the term in the TRRO makes very clear that switching relates to the physical linking of two networks. The FCC began by noting that an important function of the local circuit switch is as a means of accessing the local loop. TRRO, 18 F.C.C.R. at 17244 ¶ 429. Moreover, one of the most essential functions a switch performs is to provide routing information that sends a call to the appropriate destination. Id. at 17246 ¶ 434. The FCC explained that CLECs must either gain access to the ILEC's switches or create physical connections between their own switches and the ILEC's loop in order to provide local service. Id. at 17244 ¶ 429. Additionally, switching performs several specific functions, including connecting loop facilities to the network, switching loops to other lines and trunks, and providing service capabilities to customers, such as dial tone and vertical features. Id. at 430. The Commission has defined switching to encompass line-side and trunk-side facilities, plus the features, functions, and capabilities of the switch . . . includ[ing] the basic switching function of connecting lines to lines, lines to trunks, trunks to lines, and trunks to trunks. Id. at 17245-46 ¶ 433 (internal citations omitted). 36 In the TRRO, the FCC determined that ILECs were not required to provide switching as an unbundled network element pursuant to § 251(c)(3) because the failure to provide access to switching would not impair a CLEC's ability to provide local telephone service to its customers. See TRRO, 18 F.C.C.R. at 16989; 47 U.S.C. § 251(d)(2)(B). However, the conclusion that § 251(c)(3) does not require ILECs to provide switching says nothing about whether switching is related to the obligation to interconnect found in § 251(c)(2). Insofar as the FCC has described the basic switching function of connecting lines to lines, lines to trunks, trunks to lines, and trunks to trunks, TRRO, 18 F.C.C.R. at 17246 ¶ 433, switching is unmistakably related to the physical connection of two networks. See also MCI, 271 F.3d at 502 (characterizing remote switching modules—instruments that contain multiple switches—as devices used for interconnection). Accordingly, we conclude that agreements—such as the QPP Agreement—that permit ongoing access to an ILEC's switches are interconnection agreements that must be filed under 47 U.S.C. § 252. 37 Furthermore, the switching service in the QPP Agreement is related to the provision of unbundled network elements under § 251(c)(3). Qwest does not dispute that switching is a network element, see Qwest Utah Br. at 69, and the QPP Agreement gives MCImetro ongoing access to switching on an unbundled basis. Although the FCC has concluded that a lack of access to switching would not impair MCImetro's ability to provide services within the meaning of § 251(d)(2)(B), the FCC has also determined that access to switching generally facilitates a CLEC's ability to provide services, especially in the mass market. TRRO, 18 F.C.C.R. at 17249-55 ¶¶ 438-47. Thus, while access to switching is not required by § 251(c)(3), it is related to Qwest's § 251(c)(3) obligations because it will assist MCImetro in providing services. As a result, § 252 required Qwest and MCImetro to file the QPP Agreement with the state commissions.
38 Transport trunks are wires carrying calls between switches. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. at 371, 119 S.Ct. 721. The FCC has defined shared transport as transmission facilities shared by more than one carrier, including the incumbent LEC, between end office switches, between end office switches and tandem switches, and between tandem switches in the incumbent LEC's network. TRRO, 18 F.C.C.R. at 17319 ¶ 533; see also U.S. Telecom Ass'n v. F.C.C., 359 F.3d 554, 588 (D.C.Cir. 2004). 8 It has also noted that switching and shared transport are inextricably linked, such that a CLEC must be given access to unbundled shared transport if it is entitled to unbundled switching under 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3). TRRO, 18 F.C.C.R. at 17319-20 ¶ 534. 39 In light of this understanding of shared transport, we conclude that shared transport relates to the physical linking of two networks. Indeed, calls must often pass through a switch, travel across a shared transport trunk, and then pass through another switch in order to cross from one network to another. In this way, switching and shared transport are inextricably linked and both relate to the physical connection of two networks. 40 Likewise, shared transport relates to Qwest's obligation to provide unbundled network elements. Shared transport is a network element that Qwest is providing on an unbundled basis. The FCC has determined that a lack of access to shared transport impairs a CLEC's ability to provide services to the extent that a lack of access to switching impairs the CLEC's ability to provide services. Id. As with switching, access to shared transport facilitates the CLEC's provision of services to its customers. It is therefore related to the ILEC's § 251(c)(3) duty to provide access to unbundled network elements whose absence would impair the CLEC's ability to provide services.