Narrative Opinion Summary
The petition for review of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order has been denied. The denial is based on the FCC's finding that the petitioner's tariff was indeterminate, violating 47 C.F.R. § 61.2(a). This ruling aligns with the precedent set in Global NAPs, Inc. v. FCC, which invalidated a tariff when it was unclear how it applied at the time of filing. The FCC also determined that the petitioner's second tariff was unlawfully indeterminate, as it did not allow carriers to ascertain incurred charges. While there was discussion regarding whether compensation for internet-bound traffic was governed by interconnection agreements under 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5), the court refrained from addressing this issue. The FCC indicated that the scope of § 251(b)(5) concerning internet-bound traffic is under proposed rulemaking. The disposition of this case will not be published, and the mandate will be withheld for seven days pending any petitions for rehearing.
Legal Issues Addressed
Indeterminate Tariff Violations under 47 C.F.R. § 61.2(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The FCC found the petitioner's tariff indeterminate which violated federal regulations, leading to the denial of the review petition.
Reasoning: The denial is based on the FCC's finding that the petitioner's tariff was indeterminate, violating 47 C.F.R. § 61.2(a).
Mandate Withholding Pending Petitions for Rehearingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court withheld its mandate for seven days to allow for any potential petitions for rehearing.
Reasoning: The mandate will be withheld for seven days pending any petitions for rehearing.
Precedent Application from Global NAPs, Inc. v. FCCsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court aligned its decision with the precedent where a tariff was invalidated due to its unclear application at the time of filing.
Reasoning: This ruling aligns with the precedent set in Global NAPs, Inc. v. FCC, which invalidated a tariff when it was unclear how it applied at the time of filing.
Scope of § 251(b)(5) Concerning Internet-Bound Trafficsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Although discussed, the court did not address whether compensation for internet-bound traffic falls under interconnection agreements, as it remains under proposed rulemaking.
Reasoning: While there was discussion regarding whether compensation for internet-bound traffic was governed by interconnection agreements under 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5), the court refrained from addressing this issue.
Unlawfully Indeterminate Tariff Determinationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The FCC held that the petitioner's second tariff was indeterminate as it failed to allow carriers to determine charges incurred.
Reasoning: The FCC also determined that the petitioner's second tariff was unlawfully indeterminate, as it did not allow carriers to ascertain incurred charges.