United States DC Circuit

When reviewing applications under Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC must offer adequate justification for why it thought that evidence of a "price squeeze" precluding profitable CLEC competition was irrelevant to its public interest analysis.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/28/2001
• Published 12/28/2001

Judges

• Before:  TATEL, Circuit Judge, SILBERMAN and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States DC Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• David W. Carpenter argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Mark C. Rosenblum, Mark E. Haddad, David L. Lawson, Jay T. Jorgensen, Theodore C. Whitehouse, Randy J. Branitsky, Thomas F. O'Neil III, William Single IV, Mark D. Schneider, Robert J. Aamoth, Brad E. Mutschelknaus and Jonathan E. Canis. Peter D. Keisler entered an appearance., Geoffrey M. Klineberg argued the cause for intervenors SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. With him on the brief were Michael K. Kellogg, Scott K. Attaway, Alfred G. Richter, Jr., James D. Ellis, Martin E. Grambow and Mary W. Marks., Eva Powers, Elisabeth H. Ross and Douglas S. Burdin were on the brief for intervenor Kansas Corporation Commission.


• For Appellees:
  
• James M. Carr, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel, and John E. Ingle, Deputy Associate General Counsel., William R. Burkett was on the brief for amicus curiae Oklahoma Corporation Commission in support of appellee.