Opinion ID: 185839
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unreasonable rate claim

Text: 46 AT&T contends that the Commission erred by assuming that, if Total had not existed, then Atlas would have served Audiobridge under the NECA tariff: no carrier that decides to engage in a chat line revenue sharing scheme would continue participating in the NECA pool, which could mean sharing its revenue with the 1100 other members of the NECA. The Commission argues that AT&T raises this argument for the first time in this court. In order to give the agency an opportunity to pass upon the issue, the Commission maintains that AT&T should have filed a petition for rehearing pursuant to § 405. 47 AT&T responds that no claim can be made that [the relevant] evidence was not in the record. And, of course, no such claim is made. But enough of the passive voice: the Commission claims that AT&T did not make the argument, not that the record evidence does not support the argument. The point could not be lost upon AT&T's counsel, which is, no doubt, why the company's half-hearted rejoinder lies buried in a footnote. In any event, we are barred by § 405 from reaching the question whether the Commission erred in assuming Atlas would have adhered to the NECA tariff.