Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.
564 U.S. 50, 180 L. Ed. 2d 96, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4375 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An incumbent local exchange carrier's statutory duty to provide interconnection under 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2) requires it to lease existing transmission facilities (entrance facilities) to competitors at cost-based rates, consistent with the Federal Communications Commission's reasonable interpretation of its own regulations.
Facts:
- Michigan Bell Telephone Company, operating as AT&T, is an incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) that owns the local telephone network infrastructure in its Michigan service area.
- Talk America, Inc. and other companies are competitive LECs seeking to offer local telephone service by connecting their networks to AT&T's network.
- This connection requires the use of "entrance facilities," which are transmission wires linking a competitive LEC's equipment to an incumbent LEC's network.
- The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued its 'Triennial Review Remand Order' in 2005, which determined that incumbent LECs were no longer obligated to provide unbundled access to entrance facilities under § 251(c)(3) of the Telecommunications Act.
- Following this order, AT&T announced it would no longer provide entrance facilities to competitive LECs at cost-based rates, even when those facilities were used for the specific purpose of interconnection (the mutual exchange of traffic between their networks).
- AT&T began charging competitive LECs higher, non-cost-based rates for the use of its entrance facilities for interconnection.
Procedural Posture:
- Competitive LECs filed a complaint against AT&T with the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC).
- The Michigan PSC ruled in favor of the competitive LECs, ordering AT&T to continue providing entrance facilities for interconnection at cost-based rates.
- AT&T challenged the PSC's ruling in the U.S. District Court.
- The District Court reversed the PSC's order, ruling in favor of AT&T.
- The Michigan PSC and competitive LECs, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Sixth Circuit, with AT&T as appellee, affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Sixth Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an incumbent local exchange carrier's duty to provide interconnection under 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2) require it to lease existing "entrance facilities" to competitive carriers at cost-based rates?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes. An incumbent LEC's duty to provide interconnection includes the obligation to lease existing entrance facilities at cost-based rates. The governing statute and regulations are ambiguous on this point, so the Court must defer to the FCC's reasonable interpretation presented in its amicus brief under the doctrine of Auer deference. The FCC's interpretation—that its regulations require leasing any technically feasible facilities for interconnection, that entrance facilities qualify, and that providing them here is feasible—is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations. This interpretation reasonably distinguishes between the use of facilities for interconnection, which remains a cost-based obligation under § 251(c)(2), and their use for other purposes like backhauling, for which the cost-based unbundling obligation under § 251(c)(3) was eliminated in the Triennial Review orders.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes. The FCC's interpretation represents the fairest reading of its regulations, even without applying Auer deference. The regulatory history, particularly the preservation of interconnection rights in the Triennial Review Remand Order, makes sense only if a distinction is maintained between backhauling (for which cost-based access was eliminated) and interconnection (for which it was preserved). While joining the Court's judgment, this opinion expresses deep skepticism about the constitutional validity of Auer deference, arguing that it violates separation of powers by allowing an agency to both promulgate and authoritatively interpret its own rules, and invites the promulgation of vague regulations.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle of Auer deference, allowing an agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations, even if presented in an amicus brief, to control a case's outcome. It confirms that the FCC can eliminate a broad unbundling requirement for a network component under one statutory provision (§ 251(c)(3)) while preserving a narrower, use-specific leasing requirement for that same component under another provision (§ 251(c)(2)). The decision reinforces the distinction between an incumbent's duty to unbundle network elements and its separate duty to provide interconnection, clarifying that the elimination of one does not automatically extinguish the other. Justice Scalia's concurrence notably signals a potential future challenge to the entire doctrine of Auer deference on separation of powers grounds.
