Opinion ID: 159803
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 47 u.s.c.a. 251-252

Text: 8 To accomplish the goals of the Act, Congress establish[ed] baseline rules for every company that want[s] to provide telecommunications service. Bruning, 30 Creighton L. Rev. at 1258. Specifically, 47 U.S.C.A. 251 imposes various duties on incumbent LECs to facilitate market entry. Because incumbents own the current network, [f]oremost among these duties is the [incumbent] LEC's obligation . . . to share its network with competitors. AT&T Corp., 952 U.S. at 371; see 47 U.S.C.A. 251(c). Congress deemed network sharing, or interconnection, necessary so that all customers, even those served by a competitor, can seamlessly and transparently make and receive calls. Bruning, 30 Creighton L. Rev. at 1259. Section 251 thus requires incumbents to negotiate interconnection agreements with entrants in good faith. See 47 U.S.C.A. 251(c)(1).
9 Under 252, an incumbent and a new carrier may privately agree on the terms of an interconnection agreement. See id. 252(a)(1). If private negotiation fails, then either party can petition the state commission that regulates local phone service to arbitrate any open issues. Id. 252(b)(1). Whether an agreement is adopted by negotiation or arbitration, it must be submitted to the state commission. Id. 252(e)(1). The state commission then must approve or reject the agreement. Id. 10 A state commission may reject a negotiated agreement only if it discriminates against non-party carriers or is inconsistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Id. 252(e)(2)(A). On the other hand, a state commission may reject an arbitrated agreement only if the agreement does not comply with 251, including the regulations prescribed by the FCC pursuant to 251, or the pricing standards set forth in 252(d). Id. 252(e)(2)(B). 11 If a state commission does not approve or reject an agreement within specified time periods, then the agreement is deemed approved. Id. 252(e)(4). However, if a state commission fails to act to carry out its responsibility under [ 252], then the FCC will preempt the state commission's jurisdiction over that proceeding and assume the state commission's responsibility. Id. 252(e)(5). 1 If a state commission does act, any party aggrieved by its determination may bring an action in an appropriate Federal district court to determine whether the agreement . . . meets the requirements of section 251 [and section 252]. Id. 252(e)(6). State courts do not have jurisdiction to review the action of a State commission in approving or rejecting an agreement. Id. 252(e)(4). If a state commission fails to act and the FCC asserts jurisdiction, then the proceeding by the [FCC] . . . and any judicial review of the [FCC's] actions shall be the exclusive remedies. Id. 252(e)(6). 12 Thus, 252 allows a state to choose whether it will participate in the federal regulatory scheme. If a state elects to regulate interconnection agreements through its state commission, then the state is subject to suit in federal court.