Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
)
)
)
In the Matter of
)
Sprint Communications Company L.P.,
)
Complainant,
) File No. EB-11-MD-003
v.
)
Northern Valley Communications, LLC,
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: July 18, 2011 Released: July 18, 2011
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This Memorandum Opinion and Order grants in part and denies in part a
formal complaint filed by Sprint Communications Company L.P.
("Sprint") against Northern Valley Communications, LLC ("Northern
Valley") under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended ("Act"). The Complaint alleges that Northern Valley's
interstate switched access service tariff ("Tariff") violates section
201(b) of the Act, and it requests that the Commission declare the
Tariff void ab initio or, in the alternative, find that the Tariff's
access rates are unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. As discussed
below, we find that the Tariff violates Commission rule 61.26, as
clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order;
that the Tariff is not "clear and explicit" as required by Commission
rule 61.2(a); and that the Tariff contains a number of unreasonable
payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we grant the Complaint to
the extent we find that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act,
and we direct Northern Valley to revise its Tariff within ten days of
release of this Order. We decline, however, to declare the Tariff void
ab initio or to set aside its rates.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
2. Sprint is an interexchange carrier ("IXC") providing interstate
telecommunications service throughout the United States. Northern
Valley is a competitive local exchange carrier ("CLEC") serving
residential and business customers in South Dakota. In addition,
Northern Valley terminates calls to conference calling companies.
Northern Valley provides interstate switched exchange access services
to IXCs such as Sprint pursuant to tariffs filed with the Commission.
3. On July 8, 2010, Northern Valley filed the Tariff on 15 days' notice,
and it became effective on July 23, 2010. Northern Valley states that
it filed the Tariff because it believed that the Commission's decision
in Qwest v. Farmers II created "doubt" as to whether Northern Valley
could impose access charges for terminating calls to conference
calling companies under its prior, existing tariff.
A. Legal Background
4. Since 1997, CLECs have been allowed to assess interstate switched
exchange access service charges upon IXCs either by filing tariffs
with the Commission or by negotiating contracts with the affected
IXCs. (In contrast, incumbent local exchange carriers ("ILECs") may
assess interstate switched exchange access charges only by filing
federal tariffs.) Section 204(a)(3) of the Act provides that LEC
tariffs are "deemed lawful" unless suspended by the Commission within
certain time periods.
5. In 2001, the Commission found that CLEC access rates were, on average,
"well above the rates that ILECs charge for similar service" and noted
that some CLECs "refused to enter meaningful negotiations on access
rates, choosing instead simply to file a tariff and bind IXCs ... to
the rates therein." Accordingly, the CLEC Access Charge Reform Order
promulgated rule 61.26, which provides that a CLEC may tariff access
charges only for services that are the "functional equivalent" of ILEC
access services, and only if the rates are no higher than those of the
ILEC serving the same geographic area in which the CLEC is located. In
this way, CLEC access rates are "benchmarked" against ILEC access
rates. If a CLEC wishes to impose higher rates, it may do so only by
negotiating with the affected IXCs. Subsequently, in the CLEC Access
Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, the Commission clarified that a
CLEC may assess tariffed switched access charges at the appropriate
benchmark rate only for calls to or from the CLEC's own end users.
6. Very recently, the Commission found that the Tariff at issue here
violated rule 61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform
Reconsideration Order. The Commission reasoned that, to the extent
the Tariff purported to charge for providing access to individuals or
entities to whom Northern Valley offered its services for free, it
impermissibly charged for services that were not being offered to "end
users" and thus were not the "functional equivalent" of ILEC services.
The Commission explained:
[U]nder the Commission's ILEC access charge regime, an "end user" is a
customer of a service that is offered for a fee. The Commission provided
no alternative definition for "end user" when stating, in the CLEC Access
Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, that a CLEC provides the functional
equivalent of ILEC services [within the meaning of rule 61.26] only if the
CLEC provides access to its "own end users." Accordingly, that order
establishes that a CLEC's access service is functionally equivalent only
if the CLEC provides access to customers to whom the CLEC offers its
services for a fee.
The Commission ordered Northern Valley to "file tariff revisions ... to
provide that interstate switched access service charges will apply only to
the origination or termination of calls to or from an individual or entity
to whom Northern Valley offers telecommunications services for a fee."
III. DISCUSSION
A. The Tariff Violates Section 201(b) of the Act.
1. The Tariff Violates Commission Rule 61.26.
7. In its Complaint, Sprint contends that the Tariff violates Commission
rule 61.26 because it purports to charge IXCs for calls to or from
individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers its services
for free. Sprint is correct. As the Commission explained in finding
the Tariff unlawful in Qwest v. Northern Valley, rule 61.26 (as
clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order)
establishes that a CLEC may assess tariffed access charges at the
appropriate benchmark rate only for calls that are to or from an
individual or entity to whom the CLEC offers its services for a fee.
Therefore, we grant Sprint's claim that the Tariff violates rule
61.26, and, accordingly, violates section 201(b) of the Act.
1. The Tariff Terms Are Not Clear and Explicit.
8. Commission rule 61.2(a) requires that tariffs contain "clear and
explicit explanatory statements regarding rates and regulations." The
Complaint asserts that the Tariff violates the rule 61.2(a) stricture
in a number of ways, most significantly with respect to its definition
of "End User." We agree.
9. The Tariff defines "End User" in a contradictory manner. On the one
hand, the first sentence of the "End User" definition states that an
"End User" is "any Customer of an Interstate or Foreign
Telecommunications Service that is not a carrier." Under the Act,
"telecommunications service" is the "offering of telecommunications
for a fee." Thus, according to the first sentence of the Tariff's "End
User" definition, an "End User" is a user to whom Northern Valley
offers its services for a fee. On the other hand, the last sentence of
the Tariff's "End User" definition states that "[a]n End User need not
purchase any service provided by [Northern Valley]." Unlike the first
sentence, this last sentence seems to define "End User" as an
individual or entity to whom Northern Valley offers its services free
of charge. Thus, the Tariff's "End User" definition is internally
inconsistent and therefore is not "clear and explicit" as required by
rule 61.2(a).
10. Moreover, other Tariff provisions repeatedly use the term "End User,"
or define other terms with reference to "End User." Thus, for example,
the Tariff defines "Access Charge" as "Charges assessed to the Buyer,"
and defines "Buyer" as an IXC "utilizing [Northern Valley's] Access
Service to complete a call to or from End Users." Similarly, the
Tariff purports to charge IXCs for originating or terminating traffic
to "Volume End Users." In short, the lack of clarity in the "End User"
definition has a significant impact upon the entire Tariff.
Accordingly, we find that the Tariff is not "clear and explicit" as
required by rule 61.2(a), and, therefore, that the Tariff violates
section 201(b) of the Act.
1. The Tariff's Payment and Billing Provisions Are Unreasonable.
11. Sprint contends that several provisions of the "Payment and Billing"
section of the Tariff violate section 201(b). We review these
provisions to determine whether they are reasonable in compliance with
the requirements of section 201 of the Act and the Commission's rules.
12. Sprint alleges that Northern Valley's "Jurisdictional Reporting
Requirements" are unreasonably vague and violate section 201(b) of the
Act. Under those provisions, when the jurisdiction of a call is
indeterminate, Northern Valley may request a percent of interstate use
factor ("PIU Factor") from its IXC customer. Northern Valley is not
obligated to use the PIU Factor supplied by the IXC, however, and "at
its sole discretion, may use a different PIU Factor." Northern Valley
contends that the Tariff reserves Northern Valley's right to use a
different PIU Factor than that provided by the IXC only when Northern
Valley believes the IXC's PIU Factor is inaccurate. But the Tariff
language is not so limited. It gives Northern Valley unfettered
discretion to use a different PIU Factor and, therefore, the ability
to rely on unspecified and potentially arbitrary and discriminatory
factors to establish the jurisdiction of the traffic. This may result
in a PIU Factor that bears no relationship to the actual percentage of
the Buyer's interstate and intrastate traffic, and allows Northern
Valley to manipulate the PIU Factor so as to maximize its access
charges by choosing the jurisdiction with higher rates for most or all
of the traffic. Accordingly, the Jurisdictional Reporting Requirements
provisions are unreasonable under section 201(b) of the Act.
13. Sprint further challenges the "Deposit" provisions in the Tariff,
which provide in part that "[t]o safeguard its interests, the company
may require a Buyer to make a deposit to be held as a guarantee for
the payment of charges. A deposit may be requested prior to providing
Service(s) or at any time after the provision of service to a Buyer."
These provisions establish no standard as to when a deposit will be
required. Such unconstrained ability to impose deposit obligations is
susceptible to potentially discriminatory application. Consequently,
we conclude that the provisions are unreasonable under section 201.
14. In addition, Northern Valley's "Billing Disputes" provision requiring
carriers to dispute bills within 90 days or waive "any and all rights
and claims with respect to the bill and the underlying dispute" is
unreasonable. This provision contravenes the two-year statute of
limitations in the Communications Act, and, by its terms, purports
unilaterally to bar a customer from exercising its statutory right to
file a complaint within that limitations period. Similarly, the Tariff
provision that requires all disputed charges to be paid "in full prior
to or at the time of submitting a good faith dispute" is unreasonable.
As written, this provision requires everyone to whom Northern Valley
sends an access bill to pay that bill, no matter what the
circumstances (including, for example, if no services were provided at
all), in order to dispute a charge. Further, the Billing Disputes
provision states that Northern Valley is "the sole judge of whether
any bill dispute has merit." This provision is unreasonable, because
it conflicts with sections 206 to 208 of the Act, which allow a
customer to complain to the Commission or bring suit in federal
district court for the recovery of damages regarding a carrier's
alleged violation of the Act.
15. In contrast, however, we conclude that Northern Valley's "Late Payment
Fee" provision regarding "Adjustments or Refunds to the Buyer" is
reasonable. Sprint maintains that the Tariff imposes late fees on
withheld amounts even if it is ultimately decided that Northern
Valley's billing is erroneous. We read the challenged Tariff
provision, however, to require Northern Valley to refund and pay
simple interest on all disputed amounts paid pursuant to the Tariff,
including any associated late payment fees.
16. Finally, we conclude that Northern Valley's "Attorneys' Fees"
provision is unreasonable because it permits Northern Valley to
recover its attorneys' fees regardless of whether Northern Valley
prevails on a claim. A Buyer who successfully demonstrates in
litigation that Northern Valley improperly billed should not be
obligated to pay Northern Valley's attorneys' fees.
A. We Deny Sprint's Remaining Claims.
17. Citing the Tariff's numerous flaws, Sprint requests that the
Commission declare the Tariff void ab initio. We decline to do so.
Pursuant to section 204(a)(3) of the Act, the Tariff is "deemed
lawful" until found otherwise by this Commission or a court of law.
Sprint argues that "there are limits to the scope of the deemed lawful
provision," and that a "deemed lawful" tariff may be declared void ab
initio in a section 208 complaint proceeding. Even if Sprint is
correct, Sprint has not established that Northern Valley engaged in
furtive concealment, or any other deceptive conduct that might justify
removing the protection afforded by section 204(a)(3).
18. In the alternative, Sprint requests that, if the Commission does not
declare the Tariff void ab initio, it find that the Tariff's rates are
excessive and prescribe lower rates "on a going-forward basis." We
deny this request. As Sprint admits, the Tariff's rates are no higher
than the ILEC rates against which they are benchmarked pursuant to
rule 61.26. The Commission has emphasized that tariffed rates within
the rule 61.26 benchmark are accorded a "conclusive presumption of
reasonableness." This Order requires Northern Valley to revise the
Tariff to state "clear[ly] and explicit[ly]" that charges will be
imposed only for providing access to individuals or entities to whom
Northern Valley offers its services for a fee. As so revised, the
Tariff will comport with rule 61.26, and its rates will therefore be
conclusively presumed reasonable.
19. Sprint disagrees with this analysis, arguing that Northern Valley's
rates may be challenged in a formal complaint proceeding. We need not
decide whether Sprint is correct, because Sprint has not shown in this
proceeding that Northern Valley's rates will prove to be unreasonable
after Northern Valley revises its Tariff. Sprint asserts that Northern
Valley's rates are excessive given Northern Valley's high traffic
volumes. Yet Sprint has not established that Northern Valley's traffic
volume will remain high after the Tariff is revised, in accordance
with this Order, to impose access charges only for calls to or from
paying end users. Indeed, Sprint alleges that Northern Valley's
traffic volume is elevated precisely because the Tariff charges for
providing access to entities that do not pay Northern Valley for its
services.
A. Northern Valley's Affirmative Defenses Lack Merit.
20. Northern Valley asserts as an affirmative defense that Sprint has
"unclean hands," alleging that Sprint has not paid Northern Valley
amounts owing under Northern Valleys' tariffs. Even if this defense
were available in a section 208 formal complaint proceeding, it would
fail in this case. The unclean hands doctrine does not apply unless
the alleged misconduct relates directly to the transaction that is the
subject of the complaint. Northern Valley has not established that
Sprint refuses to pay amounts invoiced pursuant to the Tariff at issue
here, as opposed to prior Northern Valley tariffs.
21. Northern Valley further argues that Sprint failed to negotiate in good
faith because the pre-complaint letter that Sprint sent Northern
Valley pursuant to Commission rule 1.721(a)(8) stated that a complaint
would not be filed if Northern Valley withdrew the Tariff. Northern
Valley views this statement as a "precondition" that is inconsistent
with "good faith negotiations." This defense also fails. Before filing
the Complaint, Sprint informed Northern Valley that it was "willing to
listen" to "other idea[s] of how the issues we raise can be resolved."
Further, Sprint's letter complied with rule 1.721(a)(8), because it
outlined the allegations that form the basis of the Complaint and gave
Northern Valley a reasonable opportunity to respond.
22. In conclusion, Northern Valley's Tariff violates Commission rule
61.26, as clarified by the CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration
Order, because it purports to charge for providing access to
individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers its services
for free. Moreover, the Tariff's terms are not "clear and explicit" as
required by Commission rule 61.2(a). Finally, the Tariff contains a
number of unreasonable payment and billing provisions. Accordingly, we
conclude that the Tariff violates section 201(b) of the Act, and
Northern Valley must revise it to make "clear and explicit" that
Northern Valley will charge IXCs for providing access only to
individuals or entities to whom Northern Valley offers its services
for a fee, and to remove the Tariff's unreasonable payment and billing
provisions.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSEs
23. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201,
203, 204, 205, 206, 208, and 415 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 203, 204, 205, 206,
208, and 415, and sections 61.2 and 61.26 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R. S:S: 61.2 and 61.26, that the Complaint is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part.
24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 203,
204, 205, 206, 208, and 415 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 203, 204, 205, 206,
208, and 415, and sections 61.2 and 61.26 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R. S:S: 61.2 and 61.26, that Northern Valley Communications,
LLC SHALL FILE tariff revisions consistent with this Order within ten
days of the release of this Order.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Formal Complaint of Sprint Communications Company L.P., File No.
EB-11-MD-003 (filed Feb. 18, 2011) ("Complaint").
47 U.S.C. S: 208.
See Complaint Ex. 1 (Northern Valley Communications, LLC Access Service
Tariff No. 3, effective July 23, 2010) ("Tariff").
Complaint at 35-37, P:P: 73-81 (Count I) (citing 47 U.S.C. S:S: 201(b)
(prohibiting "unjust and unreasonable practices") and 205 (authorizing
Commission to "prescribe just and reasonable charges")); id. at 37-38, P:
82 (Prayer for Relief). Sprint states that it "is not requesting damages,"
Complaint at 4, P: 5, but adds that it "reserves the right to seek damages
at a later time," id. at 4 n.8. Sprint's conflicting statements fail to
comply with the requirements of Commission rule 1.722(d) regarding
requests for damages in a subsequent proceeding. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.722(d)
(requiring that requests for damages be "clear and unequivocal").
47 C.F.R. S: 61.26; Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed
by Local Exchange Carriers, Eighth Report and Order and Fifth Order on
Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 9108 (2004) ("CLEC Access Charge Reform
Reconsideration Order").
47 C.F.R. S: 61.2(a) ("In order to remove all doubt as to their proper
application, all tariff publications must contain clear and explicit
explanatory statements regarding the rates and regulations.").
Complaint at 4, P: 7; Answer of Northern Valley Communications, LLC, File
No. EB-11-MD-003 (filed Mar. 21, 2011) ("Answer") at 4, P: 7.
Sprint's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Ex. 1
(Stipulations of Fact), File No. EB-11-MD-003 (filed Feb. 18, 2011)
("Stipulations") at 1, P: 1, 3, P:P: 14-16; Complaint at 5, P: 8; Answer
at 4, P: 8; Answer, Legal Analysis at 4.
Answer, Ex. 1 (Tariff); Stipulations at 1, P: 1, 2-3, P:P: 11-12; Answer,
Legal Analysis at 4-5.
Complaint, Ex. 1 (Tariff); Answer, Ex. 1 (Tariff); Stipulations at 3, P:P:
17, 19.
Complaint at 8, P: 17 & Ex. 1 (Tariff); Answer at 5, P: 17 & Ex. 1
(Tariff).
Qwest Communications Corp. v. Farmers and Merchants Mut. Tel. Co., Second
Order on Reconsideration, 24 FCC Rcd 14801 (2009) ("Qwest v. Farmers II").
Answer, Legal Analysis at 5. In Qwest v. Farmers II, the Commission
granted a section 208 complaint against Farmers and Merchants Mutual
Telephone Company of Wayland, Iowa ("Farmers"), a rural LEC that was
engaged in access stimulation. Farmers' tariff imposed access charges for
transporting calls to or from an "end user's premises" and defined "end
user" as "any customer of an interstate or foreign telecommunications
service other than a carrier." Qwest v. Farmers II, 24 FCC Rcd at 14801,
P: 1, 14805, P: 10. The Commission concluded that, because the conference
calling companies did not purchase any services from Farmers, they were
not "end users" within the meaning of Farmers' tariff. Accordingly, the
Commission found that Farmers had violated sections 201(b) and 203(c) of
the Act because it had imposed charges that were inconsistent with its
tariff: "[N]othing in the contracts [between Farmers and the conference
calling companies] suggests that the conference calling companies would
subscribe to any tariffed Farmers' service or pay Farmers for their
connections to the interexchange network, as would ordinary end-user
customers under the tariff." Id. at 14801, P: 1, 14806, P: 12.
See Hyperion Telecommunications, Inc. Petition Requesting Forbearance,
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd
8596, 8596, P: 1 (1997) ("Hyperion Forbearance Order") (granting
"permissive detariffing for provision of interstate exchange access
services by providers other than the incumbent local exchange carrier").
47 U.S.C. S: 204(a)(3) ("A [LEC] may file with the Commission a new or
revised charge, classification, regulation, or practice on a streamlined
basis. Any such charge, classification, regulation, or practice shall be
deemed lawful and shall be effective 7 days (in the case of a reduction in
rates) or 15 days (in the case of an increase in rates) after the date on
which it is filed with the Commission unless the Commission takes action
... before the end of that 7-day or 15-day period ... ").
Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive
Local Exchange Carriers, Seventh Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 9923, 9931, P: 22, 9934, P: 28 (2001)
("CLEC Access Charge Reform Order"). The Commission declared further that
its goal was "ultimately to eliminate regulatory arbitrage opportunities
that previously have existed with respect to tariffed CLEC switched access
services." Id. at 9925, P: 3. The Commission expressed concern that CLECs
were using high access rates to shift a substantial portion of their costs
onto long distance carriers and subscribers who chose an access provider
with lower rates. Id. at 9948, P: 59. Recently, moreover, the Commission
sought comment on revisions to the CLEC benchmarking rule for CLECs
engaging in revenue sharing agreements. See Connect America Fund, Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC
Rcd 4554 (2011) ("Connect America Fund").
47 C.F.R. S: 61.26. See CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at
9925, P: 3, 9938, P:P: 40-41 (describing the "bright line" that a
"benchmark" would provide). The Commission made an exception for those
small rural CLECs whose rates would otherwise be benchmarked against those
of larger ILECs serving both rural and more urban communities. The
Commission permitted these "rural CLECs" to benchmark their rates against
the significantly higher rates found in the tariff to which small,
generally rural ILECs subscribe. CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC
Rcd at 9953, P: 73; 47 C.F.R. S: 61.26 (e) (rural exemption).
CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9925, P: 3, 9938, P: 40; 47
C.F.R. S: 61.26.
CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, 19 FCC Rcd 9114, P: 13,
9115, P: 15.
Qwest Communications Company, LLC v. Northern Valley Communications, LLC,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2011 WL 2258081 (June 7, 2011), petition for
recon. filed ("Qwest v. Northern Valley").
Qwest v. Northern Valley at P: 9.
Qwest v. Northern Valley at P: 17 (emphasis added). On June 14, 2011,
Northern Valley filed revisions to the Tariff, which the Pricing Policy
Division of the Wireline Competition Bureau rejected on June 28, 2011. See
Northern Valley Communications, LLC Revisions to Tariff No. 3, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 2011 WL 2577786 (WCB/PPD rel. June 28, 2011). Northern
Valley again filed revisions to the Tariff on July 7, 2011. Letter from G.
David Carter, Counsel for Northern Valley Communications, LLC, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
Transmittal No. 7 (filed July 7, 2011). Sprint's Complaint, and this
order, address the Tariff that took effect on July 23, 2010, and do not
address any Tariff revisions attempted or effected after that date.
Complaint at 1-2, P: 2, 10, P: 21, 16-20, P:P: 34-41, 23-26, P:P: 49-52;
Complaint, Legal Analysis at 10-12; Sprint Communications Company L.P.'s
Reply in Support of Formal Complaint, File No. EB-11-MD-003 (filed Apr. 4,
2011("Reply") at 17-20.
In an effort to defeat Sprint's rule 61.26 claim, Northern Valley repeats
many of the same arguments it made in Qwest v. Northern Valley. Thus,
Northern Valley argues here, as in Qwest v. Northern Valley, that the
question of whether the Tariff purports to charge for providing access to
users who have purchased services from Northern Valley is irrelevant as a
matter of law and logic; that the Commission should evaluate the Tariff
solely on the basis of the definitions contained therein, not in the light
of Commission orders and rules; that Sprint has not alleged that Northern
Valley has in fact imposed charges for entities that have not purchased
services from Northern Valley; and that the Wireline Competition Bureau
did not act on various IXC petitions to reject or suspend the Tariff. See
Answer, Legal Analysis at 12-26. We reject these arguments for the same
reasons we rejected them in Qwest v. Northern Valley. See Qwest v.
Northern Valley at P:P: 10-14.
The CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order was promulgated
pursuant to, among other provisions, section 201 of the Act, see CLEC
Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 9166, P: 136, in
furtherance of the Commission's obligation to ensure that "[a]ll charges,
practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with ...
communication service [are] just and reasonable." 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b).
47 C.F.R. S: 61.2(a). This rule was promulgated pursuant to, among other
provisions, section 201 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201. See CLEC Access
Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9975, P: 145; id. at 9931, P: 21
("section 201 gives us the authority to ensure that CLEC rates are just
and reasonable.").
See Complaint at 11-12, P: 24, 13, P: 28; Complaint, Legal Analysis at
8-10; Reply at 11-13.
Tariff, Original Page No. 8, Definitions.
47 U.S.C. S: 153(53). See Petition for Declaratory Ruling that
pulver.com's Free World Dialup is Neither Telecommunications Nor a
Telecommunications Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 3307,
3312-13, P: 10 (2004) ("In order to be a telecommunications service, the
service provider must assess a fee for its service."). The Act's
definition of "telecommunications service" applies to our construction of
the Tariff's "end user" definition. 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts S: 359
(2004) ("where words or terms having a definite legal meaning and effect
are knowingly used in a contract or other instrument, the parties thereto
will be presumed to have intended such words or terms to have their proper
legal meaning and effect ...."). See also id. at S: 371 ("Contracting
parties are presumed to contract in reference to the existing law, and to
have in mind all the existing laws relating to the contract ...."). These
principles apply with particular force here, because the Tariff adopts the
precise definition of "end user" found in Commission rules and orders
governing ILEC tariffs. See 47 C.F.R. S: 69.2(m) (defining "end user" as
"any customer of an interstate or foreign telecommunications service that
is not a carrier ..."); Investigation of Access and Divestiture Related
Tariffs, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 97 FCC 2d 1082, 1192, S: 2.6 (1984)
("ECA Tariff Order") (requiring that the Exchange Carriers' Association
tariff, as the model tariff for exchange access tariffs, so define "end
user"); Access and Divestiture Related Tariffs (Non-ECA Filings),
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 55 Rad. Reg. 2d 869, 870, P: 2 (1984)
(requiring Bell Operating Companies and independent LECs "to implement the
directives of the ECA Tariff Order ...").
Tariff, Original Page No. 8, Definitions.
Similarly, the Tariff defines "Customer of an Interstate or Foreign
Telecommunications Service" as "any person or entity who sends or receives
an interstate or foreign Telecommunications service transmitted to or from
a Buyer across the Company's network, without regard to whether ...
payment is tendered to ... [Northern Valley]." Tariff, Original Page No.
7, Definitions (emphasis added).
Tariff, Original Page No. 7, Definitions (emphasis added).
Tariff, Original Page No. 46, S: 7.2.2 (emphasis added). See also, e.g.,
Tariff at Original Page No. 8 ("End User Designated Premises") (emphasis
added); id. (defining "Minutes of Use" as "the number of minutes for which
a Buyer is billed" while, as noted, defining "Buyer" as an IXC that
completes a call to End Users") (emphasis added); id. at Original Page 36,
S: 5.1 (stating that "Switched Access Service" will "enable a Buyer to
utilize [Northern Valley's] network") (emphasis added).
See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - Part 61 of the Commission's Rules
and Related Tariffing Requirements, Report and Order and First Order on
Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12293, 12326, P:P: 98-99 (1999) (adopting rule
61.2 pursuant to section 201, among other provisions); Halprin, Temple,
Goodman & Sugrue v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13
FCC Rcd 22568, 22574-76, P:P: 8-13 (1998) (finding that "the Tariff is not
clear and explicit as required by section 61.2 of the Commission's rules,
which renders the Tariff unreasonable in violation of section 201(b) of
the Act"). Sprint argues that additional Tariff provisions, which also
purport to charge for calls to entities that do not purchase services from
Northern Valley, violate rule 61.2(a). See Complaint at 11-16, P:P: 23-33;
Complaint, Legal Analysis at 4-14; Reply at 7-14. We do not address these
provisions here, because our finding that the Tariff must be revised to
make "clear and explicit" that it imposes access charges only for
providing access to Northern Valley's own, paying end users will afford
Sprint all the relief to which it is entitled.
See Complaint at 31-35, P:P: 64-72.
Contrary to Northern Valley's contention (see Answer, Legal Analysis at
49), the Commission has determined that CLEC access tariffs are subject to
the just and reasonable standard of section 201. See In the Matter of
Access Charge Reform, First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 15982, 16141, P:
363 (1997); CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9929, P: 15;
CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 9117, P: 18
& n.61. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. S: 61, Subpart A (General), Subpart C
(General Rules for Nondominant Carriers), Subpart F (Specific Rules for
Tariff Publications of Dominant and Nondominant Carriers), Subpart G
(Concurrences), and Subpart J (Suspensions).
See Tariff, Original Page No. 29, S:S: 3.1.4.1 & 3.1.4.2 ("Jurisdictional
Reporting Requirements").
Complaint at 34-35, P: 72.
The Tariff describes the PIU Factor as a projected estimate by the Buyer
of the split between the Buyer's interstate and intrastate traffic. See
Tariff, Original Page 29, S: 3.1.4.1.
See Tariff, Original Page No. 29, S: 3.1.4.2 .
Answer, Legal Analysis at 50.
Tariff, Original Page No. 30, S: 3.1.5.1. See Complaint at 34, P: 71;
Complaint, Legal Analysis at 44-45; Reply at 32.
Tariff, Original Page No. 30, S: 3.1.5.
The Commission has determined that deposit requirements should be
"narrowly tailored" to address specific risks of nonpayment and to
eliminate broad authority to require deposits without objective criteria,
which "are particularly susceptible to discriminatory application." In re
Verizon Petition for Emergency Declaratory and Other Relief, Policy
Statement, 17 FCC Rcd 26884, 26894, P:P: 21-22 (2002) ("Verizon
Declaratory Policy Statement") (tariffs are not properly drafted when they
provide LECs a "great deal of discretion in determining which customers
will or will not be subjected to these [deposit] burdens"). Because we
find Northern Valley's deposit provisions unreasonable, we also find the
deposit provisions in section 3.2.3.1 to be unreasonable. See Tariff,
Original Page No. 35, S: 3.2.3.1 ("Service may be suspended or terminated
for nonpayment of any bill or deposit until such bill or deposit is
paid."). See also Investigation of Access and Divestiture Related Tariffs,
Phase I Order, 97 FCC 2d 1082, 1169 (1984).
See Tariff, Original Page No. 32, S: 3.1.7.1(a) (the "Buyer shall be
deemed to have waived any and all rights and claims ... if a good faith
dispute is not timely filed").
47 U.S.C. S: 415.
See 47 U.S.C. S: 415. Northern Valley's contention that the dispute notice
provision does not modify the statute of limitations period is
inconsistent with the waiver language of the provision. See Answer, Legal
Analysis at 45. Indeed, this tariff language is indistinguishable from
tariff language that a federal district court recently invalidated. See
Paetec Communications, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc., 712 F.
Supp. 2d 405, 416-17 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (construing identical tariff language
and finding that "the 90-day dispute resolution provision in Paetec's
tariff could not preempt the federal statute of limitations in the context
of a tariff because the terms of a tariff are not negotiated like the
terms of a contract. If a term in the tariff could supersede the statute
of limitations, it would mean that a carrier could unilaterally void
federally codified consumer protections simply by filing a tariff."). See
also MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc. v. Paetec Communications, Inc.,
204 Fed.Appx. 271, 272 (4th Cir. 2006) ("a party could not use a tariff to
shorten unilaterally the two-year statute of limitations"). None of the
cases cited by Northern Valley involved a challenge to the reasonableness
of a tariff provision under section 201(b) of the Act. See Answer, Legal
Analysis at 43-45.
See Tariff, Original Page No. 32, S: 3.1.7.1(b) ("Any disputed charges
must be paid in full prior to or at the time of submitting a good faith
dispute and failure to tender payment for disputed invoices ... is
sufficient basis ... to deny a dispute ....").
See Tariff, Original Page No. 33, S: 3.1.7.1(d) (emphasis added).
47 U.S.C. S:S: 206-208.
See Tariff, Original Page No. 33, S: 3.1.7.1(c) ("Buyer will incur a Late
Payment Fee on the unpaid amount at the rate of 1.5% per month on the
total unpaid balance"). See also Tariff, Original Page No. 33, S: 3.1.73
("Adjustments or Refunds to the Buyer").
Reply at 31.
See Tariff, Original Page No. 33, S: 3.1.7.3(a) ("In the event that the
Company resolves the billing dispute in favor of a Buyer who has paid the
total amount of the disputed bill as required by this Tariff, the Company
will credit the Buyer's account for any overpayment by the Buyer, together
with Simple Interest"). See also Tariff Original Page No. 33, S:
3.1.7.3.(b).
See Tariff Original Page No. 34, S: 3.1.7.4 ("In the event that [Northern
Valley] pursues a claim in Court or before any regulatory body ... Buyer
shall be liable for the payment of [Northern Valley's] ... attorneys'
fees").
Complaint at 37, P: 82 (Count I); Complaint, Legal Analysis at 3-4; Reply
at 23-26.
See Qwest Communications Corp. v. Farmers and Merchants Mut. Tel. Co.,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 17973-80, P:P: 26-27 & n.52
(2007) ("Qwest v. Farmers I"); Virgin Islands Tel. Co. v. FCC, 444 F.3d
666, 673 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Reply at 34. See generally Reply at 33-36.
See ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC, 290 F.3d 403, 412 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (the
court, in reversing a Commission decision finding that a tariff did not
qualify for "deemed lawful" status, notes that it was not addressing "the
case of a carrier that furtively employs improper accounting techniques in
a tariff filing, thereby concealing potential rate-of-return violations").
Complaint, Legal Analysis at 33. Accord id. at 30-39. See also Complaint
at 27-31, P:P: 56-64, 36, P: 77; Reply at 22-26. A tariff's rates may not
be set aside during the time that the tariff enjoyed "deemed lawful"
status under section 204(a)(3). Qwest v. Farmers I, 22 FCC Rcd at 17978
n.52 ("Since the passage of section 204(a)(3) of the Act, the Commission
cannot award refunds in connection with tariffs that are `deemed
lawful.'").
Complaint, Legal Analysis at 32 ("Northern Valley has set its new rates
below the benchmark rate in 47 C.F.R. S: 61.26 ....").
CLEC Access Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9948, P: 60. Accord id. at
9938, P: 40 (stating that the order "establish[es] a benchmark level at
which CLEC access rates will be conclusively presumed to be just and
reasonable ...") (emphasis added).
Sprint's argument that the Tariff's rates are not presumed reasonable
because the Tariff violates rule 61.26 therefore does not succeed. See
Complaint, Legal Analysis at 32-34; Reply at 26. Northern Valley filed
Tariff revisions on June 14, 2011, which the Pricing Policy Division of
the Wireline Competition Bureau rejected on June 28, 2011. Northern Valley
then filed Tariff revisions on July 7, 2011. See n.22, supra.
See Complaint, Legal Analysis at 32-33; Reply at 22-26 (citing CLEC Access
Charge Reform Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9955, P: 77 (the Commission "will be
able to address, on a case-by-case basis, the improper exploitation of
[the rural exemption]..."); CLEC Access Charge Reform Reconsideration
Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 9143-44, P: 72) (if a carrier "believes that any
particular LEC rate or practice is unlawful, it may bring a challenge
under section 208 of the Act").
A complainant in a section 208 complaint proceeding must show a violation
of the Act "by a preponderance of the evidence." Contel of the South, Inc.
v. Operator Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd
548, 552, P: 10 (2008). See, e.g., Consumer.Net v. AT&T Corp., Order, 15
FCC Rcd 281, 284-85, P: 6 (1999); Consumer.Net, LLC and Russ Smith v.
Verizon Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd
2737, 2740, P: 10 (Enf. Bur. Apr. 1, 2010).
See Complaint, Legal Analysis at 35-39; Reply at 22-26.
Sprint alleges that Northern Valley's traffic volume is elevated because
Northern Valley enters into "traffic-pumping schemes" with providers of
high-volume services such as a conference calling companies and chat lines
(collectively "CCCs") that direct large volumes of interstate traffic to
Northern Valley. Northern Valley allegedly uses the Tariff to force IXCs
to pay excessive access charges for terminating this traffic, and then
pays a portion of its concomitantly increased access revenues to the CCCs.
See Complaint at 2-3, P: 3, 5-7, P:P: 10-15; Complaint, Legal Analysis at
1-2, 31-32, 35, 39; Reply at 25. Thus, the arrangements described by
Sprint require that Northern Valley be able to impose charges upon IXCs by
tariff rather than negotiation, and that those charges are for terminating
calls to entities (i.e., the CCCs) to which Northern Valley offers its
services for free.
See Answer at 19, P: 4 (Affirmative Defenses); id., Legal Analysis at 7-9.
See Marzec v. Power, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4475, 4480 n.35 (2000) ("the
Commission has expressed doubt that the unclean hands defense is available
in section 208 proceedings") (citing AT&T Corp. v. Bell
Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 556, 598 &
n.233 (1998) (same)).
See, e.g., Marzec, 15 FCC Rcd at 4480 (rejecting unclean hands defense
because the complainant's alleged misconduct was "irrelevant" to the
defendant's violations); Wolff v. Westwood Management, LLC, 558 F.3d 517,
521 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (assertion of unclean hands as defense against claim
that dispute is subject to arbitration cannot succeed where "[t]here is no
allegation that appellees have unclean hands with respect to the agreement
to arbitrate itself"); Sellar Agency Council, Inc. v. Kennedy Center for
Real Estate Education, Inc., 621 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) ("It is
fundamental to the operation of the [unclean hands] doctrine that the
alleged misconduct by the party relate directly to the transaction
concerning which the complaint is made.") (citations and brackets
omitted).
See Answer, Legal Analysis at 8 (stating that Sprint began paying Northern
Valley's invoices "at the end of 2010"); id. at 25 (arguing that Sprint
has not shown that Northern Valley has charged Sprint for calls to
entities that do not purchase services from Northern Valley). In any
event, Sprint's alleged "unclean hands" may not defeat a challenge to a
tariff that applies to an entire industry, not just to Sprint. See
McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352, 361 (1995) (unclean
hands doctrine does not apply "`where a private suit serves important
public purposes'") (quoting Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. Int'l Parts
Corp., 392 U.S. 134, 138 (1968)).
See Answer, Legal Analysis at 10 (citing 47 C.F.R. S: 1.721(a)(8), which
requires that complaints include "certification that the complainant has,
in good faith, discussed or attempted to discuss the possibility of
settlement," as well as a statement that the complainant mailed a letter
to the defendant outlining the allegations of the complaint).
Answer, Legal Analysis at 10.
Complaint, Ex. 12 (email from counsel to Sprint to counsel to Northern
Valley sent Jan. 5, 2011).
See Complaint, Ex. 10 (outlining the allegations that form the basis of
the Complaint).
See, e.g., Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones
Telecommunications, Inc., 550 U.S. 45, 52-55 (2007) (citations omitted)
("The FCC has long implemented S: 201(b) through the issuance of rules and
regulations"). See also nn. 25 & 34 above.
Because this Order provides Sprint all the relief to which it would be
entitled if we were to grant Sprint's claim that Northern Valley violates
sections 251 and 252 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S:S: 251-252, we need not
address that claim. See Complaint at 16-17, P: 34, 26, P: 55, 36, P: 76,
Complaint, Legal Analysis at 29-30; Reply at 20-22 (arguing that, to the
extent that the Tariff purports to charge IXCs for providing access to
entities that are not Northern Valley's end users, it violates the
reciprocal compensation requirements of sections 251 and 252).
(Continued from previous page)
(continued...)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-111
8
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-111