Document: 534 U.S. 327122 S.Ct. 782151 L.Ed.2d 794 NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONERv.GULF POWER COMPANY et al. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONandUNITED STATES, PETITIONERSv.GULF Nos. 00-832, 00-843 United States Supreme Court Argued October 2, 2001Decided January 16, 2002* Syllabus The Pole Attachments Act requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to set reasonable rates, terms, and conditions for certain attachments telephone electric poles. 47 U.S.C. 224(b). A pole attachment includes any by a cable television system or provider of telecommunications service [utility's] pole, conduit, right-of-way. 224(a)(4). Certain pole-owning utilities challenged an FCC order that interpreted cover commingled high-speed Internet traditional services wireless providers. After challenges were consolidated, Eleventh Circuit reversed on both points, holding are not covered either Acts two specific rate formulas used solely provide service, 224(d)(3), carriers use telecommunication services, 224(e)(1)and so Act. also held does give authority regulate communications. Held: 1.The covers access at same time as television. Pp. 411. (a)This issue is resolved plain text. No one disputes attached company only system. addition change character entity by. And what matters under statute. This best reading unambiguous Even if statute ambiguous, FCC's must be accepted provided it reasonable. P.4. (b) Respondents cannot prove FCC'S interpretation unreasonable. need consider in first instance argument facility providing extent provides television, because neither nor has had opportunity pass upon it. leave cases doubt, however. Because limits who doing attaching, attached, whether other things well. Circuits theory 224(d)(3)s (e)(1)s just rates narrow 224(b)(1)s general rate-setting mandate no foundation language 224(a)(4) (b). Neither subsection (d)s (e)s text structure suggests these exclusive sum transactions addressed stated less than theoretical coverage whole. Likewise, 1996 amendments do suggest intent decrease jurisdiction. 224(d) (e) work limitation (b), this decide scope former. go step further, once decided jurisdiction over then rate. In found but they services. frustrated refusal categorize its contingent decision warrant even service. However, faulted dodging hard questions when easier ones dispositive, challenge chosen before Court. decides, end, result obtained sensible. subject matter here technical, complex, dynamic; and, rule, agencies have fill gaps where statutes silent. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 837, 843844. 2. Wireless providers equipment susceptible regulation parties agree wire line carriers, dispute composed distinctively equipment. dispositive. It attachment, 224(b), which defined Telecommunications turn, offering public fee, regardless facilities used. 154(46). attachment. attempt seek refuge 224(a)(1) (d)(2) unavailing, those sections limit thus did, respondents would contend with fact 224(d)(2)s formula based poles space usable wires, cable, associated If, concede, providers, their was unreasonable declining draw distinction between wire-based equipment, finds support appears quite difficult draw. defer judgment technical question. Pp.1113. 3.Because fall within heartland, there enunciate disclaim limiting principle possibility literal lead absurd such as, e.g., clotheslines. sorts may examined agency instance. P.13. 208 F.3d 1263, remanded. Kennedy, J., delivered opinion Court, Rehnquist, C.J., Stevens, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ., joined, Souter Thomas, joined Parts I III. On writs certiorari united states court appeals eleventh circuit Justice Kennedy 1 * Since inception companies sought means run into home each subscriber. They convenient, often essential, lease cables utility Utilities, convenient charge monopoly rents. 2 Congress 1978, enacting Act, 92 Stat. 35, amended, 224 (1994 ed.), (The forth full Appendix, infra.) now us present regarding First, reach (broadband) service? Second, providers? Both require interpret constitutes 3 original duct, right-of-way owned controlled utility, 1996, 703, 110 150, expanded definition include, additional regulated category, ed., Supp.V). 4 Cable begun well wires 1996. been approved Appeals District Columbia Circuit. Texas Util. Elec. Co. FCC, 997 F.2d 925, 927, 929 (1993). Finding nothing view question, continued assert particular re Implementation Section 703(e) 1996: Amendment Commissions Rules Policies Governing Attachments, 13 Rcd. 6777 (1998). concluded further amended [T]he word precludes position intended distinguish attachments. Id., 6798. 5 various Courts Appeals. See 402(a) ed.); 28 2342 ed.). consolidated Circuit, see 2112(a) points. 1263 (2000). question 224(d)(3) (e)(1) Supp.V) applies second 224(e)(1). majority neither, authorized. F.3d, 1276, n.29. ruled excluded from coverage. 6 relied statutory utility: person owns controls poles, ducts, conduits, rights-of-way used, whole part, 224(a)(1). informed restricting least communications, held, negative implication. 1274. 7 Judge Carnes dissented issues. his view, unambiguously giv[e] regulatory 1281 (opinion concurring part dissenting part). We granted certiorari. 531 1125 (2001). II 8 turn here. As we noted, attachments, defines include system, These provisions resolve 9 company, If day access, cease, instant, attaching 10 our own, statute, find unambiguous. thought however, nonetheless, interpretation. 842844 (1984). burden, then, merely refute proposition attachment; do. 11 Some advance presented Appeals, or, far review discloses, FCC. wrong concentrate whose issue; say, do? Under approach, To things, falls outside ambit whatever choose. make argument, rely (which treats synonymous CFR 76.5(a) (2000)). begins follows: term facility, consisting closed transmission paths signal generation, reception, control designed video programming multiple subscribers community. 522(7) appear goes exclude common carrier except shall considered directly subscribers, unless interactive on-demand Ibid. 12 most major [since provide] residential and/or commercial Brief American Electric Power Service Corp. 20. so, contend, purposes 224(a)(4), course, might still half definition: related assertion instance, There factual premise here, application facts, ought address rather type entity, confront problem regulates (rather of) facilities. attached. So (entirely) 14 ruling different theory. sets footnote, without analysis subsections (d) (b)(1)s rates. formulas, yet left residual category derive own straightforward directs establish rates; conclusion did indeed prescribe categories; about (e), allowed. true should more conflict two. Here, conflict. self-described scope. formulas224(d)(3) (attachments service) 224(e)(1) services)is reaches simply subsets limitations third. 15 contrary, new extend telecommunications. enacted, views 925 Before true, grant coextensive single 224(d). limited despite At point, co-extensiveness ended. systems (b)just 1996whether 224(d); are, mean them necessary reliance devised Congress. 16 implicitly (b); result, compelled correct categorization is, neither. By contrast, hold reason, determine latter provisions, 17 Again, us, note proceeded sensible fashion. services: 18 Several commentators suggested operators required pay 224(e) disagree . [our] precedent, revised mandated virtue Rcd., 67946795 (footnotes omitted). 19 deciding 20 Regardless constitute believe apply. provision encompassed section clearly deemed existing definitions, obligated 224(b)(1) ensure terms [for attachments] reasonable, [a]nd would, discretion, apply 21 67956796 (footnote 22 doubly nevertheless though, makers sometimes dodge dispositive; fault taking approach. essence, chosen, us. 23 subsequent review, reiterated categorized See, Pet. Cert. No. 00843, p.15, n.4. willingness reconsider Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access Over Other Facilities, 19287, 19294 Of power prior decisions. litigation, logical unequivocal. 24 reverse telecommunications, choice rate, jurisdiction, implicated reversal. suit, carry all. answered answer yes. 25 define pure declined produce prospective expected evolve directions knew could anticipate. 837 (1984), silent, id., prudent unmodified customary discretion calculating 26 contend. attempts innovate all anything loses protection subjects itself pricing. resulting contradiction longstanding since defeat instruction encourage deployment broadband capability necessary, accelerate removing barriers infrastructure investment. Pub. L. 104104, VII, 706(a), (c)(1), 153, following 157 Supp. V). congressional policy underscores reasonableness interpretation: come III 27 act carriers. 1275. All overstated. [T]o seeks attach 224. 31; Atlantic City 40; Repondent TXU 18; Respondent Florida Light 1011. agree, hold. remains becomes one. Are some those, presumably, Act? dispositive 29 Once more, parts definition, concerns covered, covered. space, above minimum grade level can cables, 224(d)(2). too, purport 30 short, 224(d)(2) moreover, noted above, themselves concede supra, 10. follows, indistinguishable demand prototypical object. distinction, economic rationale very reason bottleneck otherwise Poles, siting some, like antennas. located anywhere sufficiently high. 31 goes. Yet proposed allegedly text, understanding record difficulties drawing burden orderly administration event, distinction; IV 32 insist Surely, billboards, clotheslines, else fancy pole. absurd, principle. 33 principle, presumably because, test margins 34 suit heartland agency's decision, therefore, entitled deference. reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 35 ordered. 36 filed Souter, joined. 37 O'Connor, took consideration cases. 38 O'CONNOR Notes: Together No.00843, Gulf al., court. Appendix Opinion 39 (a) Definitions section: 40 (1) local exchange electric, gas, water, steam, Such railroad, cooperatively organized, Government State. 41 (2) instrumentality thereof. 42 (3) State State, territory, possession States, Columbia, political subdivision, agency, 43 (4) utility. 44 (5) For section, (as 153 title) incumbent 251(h) title. 45 Authority conditions; enforcement powers; promulgation regulations 46 Subject subsection(c) adopt procedures appropriate hear complaints concerning conditions. enforcing determinations complaint established pursuant subsection, take action deems including issuing cease desist orders, authorized 312(b) rule out section. 48 (c) preemption; certification; circumstances constituting 49 Nothing construed to, respect conditions, (f) case 50 Each certify 51 (A) 52 (B) regulating interests offered via consumers 53 54 issued made effective rules implementing attachments; 55 individual matter, takes final 56 (i) 180 days after 57 (ii) applicable period prescribed beyond 360 filing complaint. 58 Determination 59 assures recovery ofnot costs amount determined multiplying percentage total duct conduit capacity, occupied operating expenses actual capital attributable entire 60 61 Until date (to party agreement) 62 Regulations governing charges; apportionment 63 shall, later years February 8, accordance govern charges fail charges. just, nondiscriminatory 64 apportion cost among entities equals two-thirds allocated equal entities. 65 according entity. 66 paragraph become Any increase adoption phased annual increments beginning regulations. 67 Nondiscriminatory 68 69 Notwithstanding (1), deny rights-of-way, non-discriminatory basis insufficient capacity reasons safety, reliability generally engineering purposes. 70 (g) Imputation 71 engages impute (and affiliate, subsidiary, associate engaged services) liable 72 (h) Modification alteration 73 Whenever owner intends modify alter right-of-way, written notification add adds modifies receiving bear proportionate share incurred making accessible. 74 Costs rearranging replacing 75 An obtains rearrangement replacement modification (including right-of-way). 76 whom joins, part. 77 join ed. V), grants (FCC Commission) Part gives 78 Nevertheless, failed engage reasoned decisionmaking asserting transmitting below FCCs point allowed stand. Instead, vacate remand instructions explain access. determination long last through category. 79 turns central question: empowers methodologies, 224(e). Petitioners, authorizes Respondents, hand, argue methodologies adopted below. 80 clear, disputed herethose accessare applies. (or court) review. Indeed, indicating currently exist methodologies. Consequently, legal chooses time, tempest teapot. 81 distinct conventional ante, 4. Crucially, proper classification using modem technology. fact, explicitly issue: precise fit. Inre 6777, 6795 petition certiorari, (hereinafter FCC) explained manner form ongoing issues d[id] intend foreclose aspect examination p.5, n.2 (quoting 6795). 82 scheme, permit avoid None mandatory applicable. methodology contained 224(d)(3). And, determinations: 83 step. technology service,1 224(d)s methodology. Or if, service,2 224(e)s methodology.3 84 Only determining answering allow examine 224(b)(1). Had though able manner. asked permissibly classified affirmative, then) 85 asks sustain articulate Yet, Harlan ago: Judicial [an agencys] orders will function accurately efficaciously [agency] indicates fully carefully methods act. Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 747, 792 (1968). obviously fallen short standard. 86 seems open options: Rates methodology; sure, rejected fourth possible option advanced respondents: lacks But wishes more. Eliminating four answers making. 87 reasons, while refusing classify arbitrary, capricious, law. 706(2)(A). therefore identify access: 224(d), 224(e), 88 failure cases, nonetheless concludes adequate. Proceeding Commission, reaching conclusion, notes indicated regardless. 89. reasoning, six one, dozen another. Either exercised [224(d)] 6796. twofold. 89 conclusively Admittedly, discussion topic opaque.4 lack 90 represented agnosticism clear. complained mistakenly felt company's properly characterized information stated, date, taken issue. (emphasis added). repeated contention merits brief, Petitioners p.30, evaluate kind ibid., inquiry gave request simple: characterization 91 Outside holds example, amicus curiae brief submitted Ninth stated: instead Amicus Curiae AT Portland, 9935609, p.19.5 Just year, Notice seeking comment 19287 Inquiry, specifically on, issues, 19294, ever already stands stark contrast matter. Title VI II. useful perspective determinations. Applications Consent Transfer Control Licenses 214 Authorizations Media One Group, Corp., 9816, 9872 (2000) 93 nearly ago asserted reached statements reflect Ante, 9. relevant Rather, entirely distinct, n.4, shown never much times recent years.6 alone. B 94 endorse primary logic, exist. admit, formulas. Moreover, advances example 95 dilemma: greater affirms possesses authority. 96 Unable [t]he offers reasoning whatsoever observation, record. 97 Leaving aside theoretically possible, 224(e).7 contemplated existence possess 224(b)(1); 224(d).8 transform empowering odd manner: provision, legislative history contains nary step.9 98 believed always great care specified services.10 vein, added Act,11 old applied until promulgated, 99 certainly Congress, Knowing size composition universe extremely evaluating complete absence evidence actually my conducive accurate efficacious judicial abstract given U.S., 792. especially unusual posture I, supra. 100 many likely end day, Prior broad authority, (CADC 1993), clear indication away 101 substantial tension policies underlying directed immediate second, declared [i]t promote development computer media. 509, 230(b)(1). Needless withdrawing subjecting pricing fundamentally inconsistent encouraging promoting Internet. 102 That permissible below, excuse justify stand.12 claim vacated, believes 103 respectfully dissent MediaOne County Henrico, F.Supp. 2d 712, 715 (ED Va. 2000), affd grounds, 257 356 (CA4 2001) (concluding service). 216 871, 878 (CA9 2000) higher p. 24; etal. 10, n.2. Residential typically separate steps. customers (ISPs) presence. phone rights way. ISP connection presence Telecom Assn. Amici 6. process, ISP, Deployment Wireline Services Offering Advanced Capability, 385, 401 (1999). process context. Notably, lines, known DSL involving 402403. reflected position. order, residence ISP's referred earlier [u]nder undoubtedly precedents. analysis, crucial What transmit presence? perhaps reviewing definition[s] [were] intend, proceeding, 6795. released expressly applicability [its prior] Federal-State Joint Board Universal Service, 11501, 11535, n. 140 Portland completely definitive 1926. observes, [O]n conceptual level, appropriately 26. notes, n.4; p.30; No.9935609 (CA9), pp.1926; (1998); (2000); Two types 224(a)(4): unlike contain restriction reference misleading. enjoy H.R. Rep. No.104204, pp.220221 (1996). While broader third generating, acquiring , available 59, 153(20) V) Given Earthlink, argues logically, technically, legally impossible fee Quite simply, way 24. Earthlink's correct, calculated n.3,

Category: 8