A federal court in Va. ruled that a condition FCC imposed on the ...
A federal court in Va. ruled that a condition FCC imposed on the 2005 merger of Verizon and MCI regarding special access pricing doesn’t preempt a stricter Va. state condition that addresses the same concern. The U.S. Dist. Court,…
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.
Richmond rejected Verizon’s appeal of a Va. Corporation Commission condition compelling Verizon to keep offering special access at the same rates and terms MCI provided before the merger. The FCC required Verizon to extend MCI pricing on DS-1 and DS-3 special access services to MCI’s former customers for 30 months. The Va. commission required MCI pricing extended for all special access customers and services, past and future, until there’s enough competition to restrain Verizon’s monopoly pricing power. Verizon said the state condition obstructs its compliance with the federal condition, and the FCC meant its condition to be the only answer to special access pricing concerns raised by the merger. Not so, the court (Case CA 3:06CV740) said, noting Va. acted 3 weeks before the FCC, so if the FCC saw problems with the state action, it could have preempted Va. expressly. The court also said that nothing in the state condition barred Verizon from fulfilling the federal condition. It said the major differences between the 2 orders were that the state order covered more special access customers and services, and could have effect longer. The court noted the FCC in reading the Telecom Act has recognized the blurring of jurisdictional lines, with national rules covering historically intrastate matters, and state rules covering traditionally interstate issues. The court said the FCC “is generally not shy about defending its territory. Its continued silence in the wake of this litigation, therefore, is quite telling.”