United States DC Circuit

FCC's finding that petitioner violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by creating a volume discount plan that favored small and growing companies, is vacated as FCC's explanation is inadequate with respect to both the discount structure and a 90% commitment requirement. On remand FCC must take account of the fact that 47 U.S.C. section 272(e)(3) is the only applicable provision, which provides that a Bell Operating Company shall charge its affiliate an amount for access to its telephone exchange service that is no less than the amount charged to any unaffiliated interexchange carriers for such services.

Appellate Information

• Argued 10/12/2006
• Decided 12/01/2006
• Published 12/01/2006

Judges

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

Court

• United States DC Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Jonathan E. Nuechterlein argued the cause for petitioner.   With him on the briefs were Bradford M. Berry and David S. Mendel., Robert B. McKenna, Jr., Edward H. Shakin, Michael E. Glover, and Scott H. Angstreich were on the brief for amici curiae Verizon Telephone Companies, et al. in support of petitioner.


• For Appellees:
  
• Richard K. Welch, Associate General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, argued the cause for respondent.   With him on the brief were Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Robert B. Nicholson and James J. Fredricks, Attorneys, Samuel L. Feder, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, and Eric D. Miller, Acting Deputy General Counsel.  Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel, entered an appearance.