Opinion ID: 185839
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Tandem switched transport charges

Text: 27 Atlas/Total argues that the Commission should not have ordered it to refund the tandem switched transport charges paid by AT&T because Atlas would have provided and AT&T would have had to pay for the same service even if Total had never existed. We must turn first, however, to the Commission's objection that we do not have jurisdiction to address that argument because it was not raised before the Commission. 28 Section 405 of the Act bars a court from considering any issue of law or fact upon which the Commission has been afforded no opportunity to pass. Where, as here, the issue was not raised explicitly, we must determine whether a reasonable Commission necessarily would have seen the question raised before [the Court] as part of the case presented to it. Time Warner Entertainment Co., v. FCC, 144 F.3d 75, 81 (D.C.Cir.1998) (emphasis in original). We do so bearing in mind that Atlas/Total, as a litigant before the Commission, had at least a modicum of responsibility for flagging the relevant issues which its documentary submissions presented. Bartholdi Cable Co., Inc. v. FCC, 114 F.3d 274, 280 (D.C.Cir.1997). 29 Atlas/Total argues that it raised the present issue in a single sentence in its opposition to AT&T's motion to dismiss and in an exhibit listing Atlas' and Total's various charges for different types of services. The sentence in question, which Atlas/Total points out was intended to rebut AT&T's claim that Total charged `nearly ten times' as much to terminate an AT&T call as did Atlas, is: A call terminated [by Atlas] at one of AT&T's own customer premises would be subject to a total charge, under NECA Tariff No. 5, of 6.63 cents, consisting of tandem switched transport and tandem switching charges plus local switching, carrier common line, RIC and an information surcharge. This sentence, which is not self-evidently about the tandem switched transport charges AT&T would have paid if Total did not exist, merely states a fact; it does not constitute an argument, let alone an argument made with the requisite clarity. See Bartholdi, 114 F.3d at 279 (The Commission need not sift pleadings and documents to identify arguments that are not stated with clarity by a petitioner). Therefore, we cannot say that a reasonable Commission necessarily would have seen that Atlas/Total had presented a question to the agency about payment of tandem switched transport charges. Atlas/Total claims it could not foretell the need for this specific argument. Perhaps not, but then under § 405 Atlas/Total should have filed a petition for rehearing so the Commission could consider the argument in the first instance. 30 As a fallback, Atlas/Total argues that we should loose the bond of § 405 in this case because unreasonable delay [by the Commission] preclude[s] strict application of the exhaustion doctrine. The Commission is supposed to decide a case within 15 months after the filing of the complaint, see 47 U.S.C. § 208(b), but in this case the agency did not issue a decision for four and one half years. Atlas/Total contends that because it could have no confidence the Commission would issue a ruling on a petition for reconsideration within the 90-day deadline set in 47 U.S.C. § 405(b), it should be allowed to bypass the agency and seek judicial review at once. 31 The case upon which Atlas/Total relies for this argument states that exhaustion is not required when unreasonable delay would render the administrative remedy inadequate. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC, 138 F.3d 746, 750 (8th Cir.1998). But in this case the petitioners seek only damages for AT&T's failure to pay Total's bills and for AT&T's blocking calls to Audiobridge. We fail to see how giving the Commission more than 90 days to consider the issue of AT&T's liability for tandem switched transport charges would render any resulting monetary relief inadequate. 32 In sum, Atlas/Total has not shown it comes within any exception to § 405. That provision therefore bars our consideration of the issue whether the Commission should have ordered Atlas to refund the tandem switched transport charges paid by AT&T.