Opinion ID: 503750
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Distinction Between Facilities and Services

Text: 61 The second reason offered by the FCC on behalf of its finding that no discrimination exists is that the real estate and equipment made available to AT & T under the SNFAs are in marked contrast to special access services, which consist of an integrated package of equipment and accompanying support (e.g., testing and maintenance) that supplies an end-to-end service capability to customers. Id. at p 58, J.A. 802; see also id. at p 58 n. 97, J.A. 801. To the extent that AT & T leases facilities under the SNFAs that could be used to provide special access services, it must itself invest in additional equipment, pay for maintenance and testing, and so on, in order to obtain the functional equivalent of the packaged services sold pursuant to tariffs. Against this background, the FCC says, it appears to us that differences between the charges, terms and conditions for special access and those for the equipment covered by SNFAs are not unreasonable. Id. at p 58, J.A. 802. 62 The FCC's finding is puzzling. It appears to be premised on the assumption that special access services and at least some facilities leased under SNFAs are not like services or facilities, and thus cannot be compared for purposes of section 202(a). Not only is this apparent assumption unsupported, however, inasmuch as the FCC never obtained copies of the SNFAs to determine whether equipment leased pursuant to them could be or is used to supply special access services, but the FCC explicitly refused to base its holding on this assumption. The paragraph from which the foregoing quotations are taken begins with the phrase: Even if we assume arguendo, however, that SNFAs and special access are 'like services'.... Id. at p 58, J.A. 800. And in the preceding paragraph the FCC stated: We are ... unpersuaded by AT & T's and the BOCs' claim that SNFAs and special access are not 'like services' because one involves the provision of facilities and the other involves the provision of a service. Id. at p 57, J.A. 799. The FCC's reasoning on this point thus borders on incoherence. 63 Moreover, if the FCC did intend to base its conclusion on a determination that like services or facilities are not involved, we could only find it arbitrary. The FCC simply lacked sufficient evidence on which to ground its claim that differences between the charges, terms and conditions for special access and those for the equipment covered by SNFAs are not unreasonable. Id. at p 58, J.A. 802. Ignorant of the charges and at least some of the special terms and conditions under the SNFAs, the FCC was hardly in a position to make a responsible and informed assessment of their reasonableness vis-a-vis those of the special access tariffs. 64