A federal court upheld a 2006 Texas Public Utility Commission ord...
A federal court upheld a 2006 Texas Public Utility Commission order lifting Consolidated Communications’ rural competition exemption and compelling it to negotiate an interconnection agreement with Sprint for wholesale VoIP services sold at retail via Sprint cable partner Suddenlink…
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.
Communications. The PUC order’s effectiveness was put on hold in March when the U.S. District Court, Austin, gave incumbent telco Consolidated a temporary injunction pending the case’s outcome. In its appeal (Case A-06-CA-825-LY), Consolidated said the PUC erred in finding Sprint a common carrier entitled to interconnection. Consolidated said Sprint’s wholesale VoIP service isn’t common carriage because pricing is confidential and the service isn’t offered indiscriminately to all potential buyers. But the court cited a 2006 federal New York court decision and a March 2007 FCC ruling that held wholesale telecom service providers are common carriers under Sec. 251. The court said telecom services sold indiscriminately by Suddenlink to the public, at published rates, won’t work without Sprint’s switching and routing functions. The court said that means Sprint “provides telecommunication services and does so in a manner that offers indiscriminate service which is effectively available directly to the public.” The Texas court noted the New York ruling’s conclusion that Sprint’s partnership arrangements with cable companies represented a new type of business arrangement, and said granting common carrier status to Sprint’s arrangement fitted the federal Telecom Act fundamental purpose, to promote local competition. The court dissolved its injunction, remanding the case to the PUC with instructions to give parties reasonable time to implement an interconnection agreement.