FCC Asked to Reconsider Wireless Termination Tariff Order
The FCC received several petitions for clarification or reconsideration of its reciprocal compensation order denying a petition by a coalition of wireless carriers regarding ILEC wireless termination tariffs. The petitions were filed last week by T-Mobile, MetroPCS, American Assn. of Paging Carriers (AAPC) and the Rural Cellular Assn.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The order addresses a petition by T-Mobile, Western Wireless and Nextel asking the agency to find that “wireless termination tariffs are not a proper mechanism for establishing reciprocal compensation arrangements for the transport and termination of traffic.” In Feb., the FCC denied the carriers’ request, saying the tariffs weren’t unlawful under existing rules. But it amended those rules to bar such tariffs in the future (CD Feb 25 p1).
T-Mobile said the prospective relief granted by the order could raise issues requiring clarification. Specifically, T-Mobile said, the Commission should clarify that it has authority under Secs. 332 and 201 of the Communications Act to impose interim CMRS traffic termination pricing rules on LECs that include the “proxy” pricing rules previously struck down by the U.S. Appeals Court, St. Louis. T-Mobile also asked the FCC to impose the same proxy pricing rules retroactively.
MetroPCS asked the FCC to confirm that the section of the decision permitting wireless termination tariffs prior to the effective date of the order applies to ILEC, not CLEC, tariffs. “Unlike the situation with ILECs, CLECs and CMRS carriers enjoy general parity in terms of their negotiating leverage on interconnection agreements,” MetroPCS said. That parity would be destroyed if CLECs were allowed unilaterally to file and enforce wireless termination tariffs, the company said. “CLECs would have absolutely no incentive to negotiate a reasonable interconnection agreement, and CMRS carriers would have no resource since they are prohibited from filing tariffs at the federal or state levels,” MetroPCS said: “The proper public interest outcome is for CMRS carriers and CLECs to be deemed to have a de facto bill-and-keep arrangement unless and until they reach a mutually agreeable reciprocal compensation arrangement.”
AAPC said the FCC should rescind its promulgation of newly-created Sec. 20.11(f) of the rules, codifying the Commission’s decision in the order. Instead of launching a declaratory ruling in response to the petition, the FCC adopted a rule in that section that “clearly does purport to govern paging carriers in their interconnection relationships with ILECs,” AAPC said. That Commission action violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the group claimed. The agency should adopt a “solution to the identified problem that does not improperly burden paging carriers and otherwise is in harmony with the explicit provisions of the Communications Act,” AAPC told the FCC.