Opinion ID: 165625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Western Wireless Issue13

Text: 34 The final issue before us is unique to No. 04-6100. The RTCs assert that the Telecommunications Act requires competing carriers to establish a physical connection within an ILEC's network for the exchange of local traffic. While distinct from the assertion that traffic must be exchanged at a point of interconnection within the RTC's network, an analysis of this issue nonetheless touches on many aspects of our foregoing discussion. 35 The RTCs interpret 47 U.S.C. § 251(c) as imposing a requirement of direct connection on a competing carrier. We disagree. As detailed above, the affirmative duty established in § 251(c) runs solely to the ILEC, and is only triggered on request for direct connection. The physical interconnection contemplated by § 251(c) in no way undermines telecommunications carriers' obligation under § 251(a) to interconnect directly or indirectly.  In full accord with our previous analysis, we hold that the RTCs' obligation to establish reciprocal compensation arrangements with the CMRS provider in the instant case is not impacted by the presence or absence of a direct connection. 36 For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the orders of the district court.