Reasons for Granting the Petition ...10
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. In the Supreme Court of the United States SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., Petitioner, v. CENTURYTEL OF CHATHAM, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI CHRISTOPHER J. WRIGHT Counsel of Record JARED P. MARX TIMOTHY J. SIMEONE HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP 1919 M Street, NW Eighth Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 730-1300 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner October 30, 2017 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by rejecting the Federal Communications Commission’s determina- tion that failure to pay a tariffed charge is not a viola- tion of the Communications Act—which will have the effect of turning the Commission into a “collection agency,” contrary to the Commission’s view of its proper role. 2. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by rejecting the Federal Communications Commission’s determina- tion that it has exclusive jurisdiction over “infor- mation services,” instead holding that states may reg- ulate intrastate information services. (i) ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioner Sprint Communications Company L.P. (“Sprint”) was the defendant below. The following par- ties (referred to collectively as “CenturyLink”) are re- spondents here and were defendants below: CenturyTel of Chatham LLC; CenturyTel of North Louisiana LLC; CenturyTel of East Louisiana LLC; CenturyTel of Central Louisiana LLC; CenturyTel of Ringgold LLC; CenturyTel of Southeast Louisiana LLC; CenturyTel of Southwest Louisiana LLC; CenturyTel of Evangeline LLC; CenturyTel of Missouri LLC; Metbel Inc.; CenturyTel of Idaho LLC; Gallatin River Communications LLC; CenturyTel of Northwest Louisiana Inc.; CenturyTel of Lake Dallas Inc.; CenturyTel of Port Arkansas Inc.; CenturyTel of San Marcos Inc.; Spectra Communications Group LLP; CenturyTel of Arkansas Inc.; CenturyTel of Mountain Home Inc.; CenturyTel of Redfield Inc.; CenturyTel of Northwest Arkansas LLC; CenturyTel of Central Arkansas LLC; CenturyTel of South Arkansas Inc.; CenturyTel of North Mississippi Inc.; Gulf Telephone Co.; CenturyTel of Alabama LLC; CenturyTel of Adamsville Inc.; CenturyTel of Claiborne Inc.; CenturyTel of Ooltewah Collegedale Inc.; iii CenturyTel of Ohio Inc.; CenturyTel of Central Indiana Inc.; CenturyTel of Odon Inc.; CenturyTel of Michigan Inc.; CenturyTel of Upper Michigan Inc.; CenturyTel of Northern Michigan Inc.; CenturyTel of Midwest Michigan Inc.; CenturyTel of Wisconsin LLC; CenturyTel of USA Wisconsin LLC; CenturyTel of Northern Wisconsin LLC; CenturyTel of Northwest Wisconsin LLC; CenturyTel of Central Wisconsin LLC; CenturyTel of Midwest Kendall LLC; CenturyTel of Midwest Wisconsin LLC; CenturyTel of Fairwater Brandon Alto LLC; CenturyTel of Larsen-Readfield LLC; CenturyTel of Forestville LLC; CenturyTel of Monroe County LLC; CenturyTel of Southern Wisconsin LLC; CenturyTel of Minnesota Inc.; CenturyTel of Chester Inc.; CenturyTel of Postville Inc.; CenturyTel of Colorado Inc.; CenturyTel of Eagle Inc.; CenturyTel of the Southwest Inc.; CenturyTel of Gem State Inc.; CenturyTel of Montana Inc.; CenturyTel of Wyoming Inc.; CenturyTel of Oregon Inc.; CenturyTel of Eastern Oregon Inc.; CenturyTel of Washington Inc.; CenturyTel of Cowiche Inc.; and CenturyTel of Inter-Island Inc. iv CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Sprint is a Delaware limited partnership and is principally engaged in providing telecommunications services to the public. The partners of Sprint are US Telecom, Inc., Utelcom, Inc., UCOM, Inc., and Sprint International Communications Corporation—all of which are direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Sprint Corporation. Sprint Corporation is a publicly traded Delaware corporation. SoftBank Corp., a pub- lically traded Japanese corporation, owns approxi- mately 80% of Sprint Corporation’s outstanding stock. v TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ....................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ........................... ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........... iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... vii OPINIONS BELOW .................................................... 1 JURISDICTION .......................................................... 2 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................. 2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 2 STATEMENT .............................................................. 5 A. Intercarrier Compensation and the FCC ............ 5 B. Voice over Internet Protocol ................................. 7 C. The Decisions Below ............................................. 8 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....... 10 I. The Fifth Circuit’s Decision that Non-Payment of Tariffed Access ChargesViolates the Communications Act Contradicts an Important Policy Determination by the FCC .... 10 A. The FCC Authoritatively Interprets the Communications Act .......................................... 10 B. The FCC Has Determined That a Failure to Pay Tariffed Charges Does Not Violate the Communications Act .......................................... 11 C. The Fifth Circuit’s Erroneous Decision Will Require the FCC to Become a Collection Agency ................................................................. 14 vi II. The Fifth Circuit’s Application of Federal Tariffs to VoIP Calls Contravenes the FCC’s Policy Decisions. ................................................. 16 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 20 Materials in the Appendix Appendix A (Order, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing Hearing En Banc, filed Aug. 1, 2017) ..... 1a Appendix B (Opinion, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed June 27, 2017) ................ 3a Appendix C (Opinion, District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, filed May 4, 2016) .................................................... 34a Appendix D (Judgment, District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, filed May 4, 2016) ............................................................ 63a Appendix E (Memorandum Order, District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, filed July 25, 2016) .................................................. 65a Appendix F (Ruling, District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, filed July 25, 2016) .......................................................... 67a Appendix G (Relevant Portions of the United States Code) ................................................ 97a vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases AT&T Co. v. Central Office Tel., Inc., 524 U.S. 214 (1998) ............................................... 15 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) ........................ 10 Glob. Crossing Telecomms., Inc. v. Metrophones Telecomms., Inc., 550 U.S. 45 (2007) .................... 10 Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) ............... 16–17 PAETEC Commc’ns, Inc. v. CommPartners, LLC, No. 08-0397, 2010 WL 1767193 (D. D.C. Feb. 18, 2010) .......................................... 17 Sprint v. Lozier, 860 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2017) ................................................. 18, 20 Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 461 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (E.D. Mo. 2006), aff’d, 530 F.3d 676 (8th Cir. 2008) ................................. 17 Regulatory Materials All Am. Tel. Co. v. AT&T Corp., 26 FCC Rcd. 723 (2011) ............................. 13, 14, 15 All Am. Tel. Co. v. AT&T Corp., 28 FCC Rcd. 3469 (2013) ................................. 13, 14 American Sharecom, Inc. v. Mountain States Tel. & Telegraph Co., 8 FCC Rcd. 6727 (1993) .... 12 America’s Choice Commc’ns, Inc. v. LCI Int’l Telecom Corp., 11 FCC Rcd. 22,494, (1996) ... 12–13 Beehive Tel., Inc. v. Bell Operating Cos., 10 FCC Rcd. 10,562 (1995) .................................... 12 viii Bell-Atlantic Delaware, Inc. v. Glob. NAPs, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd. 20,665 (2000) .................................... 15 C.F. Commc’ns Corp. v. Century Tel. of Wis., 8 FCC Rcd. 7334 (1993) ......................................... 12 In re Amendments of Part 69 of the Commission’s Rules Relating to Enhanced Serv. Providers, 3 FCC Rcd. 2631 (1988) ......................................... 16 In re Connect America Fund, 26 FCC Rcd. 17,663 (2011) ................................................... 16, 17 In re Petition for Declaratory Ruling That AT&T’s Phone-to-Phone IP Telephony Servs. Are Exempt from Access Charges, 19 FCC Rcd. 7457 (2004) ....................................... 17 Long Distance/USA, Inc., Am. Sharecom, Inc. v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa., 7 FCC Rcd. 408 (1992) .... 11–12 Tel-Central v. United Tel. Co., 4 FCC Rcd. 8338 (1989) ..................................... 4, 11 Statutory Materials 47 U.S.C. § 251 .............................................. 17, 18, 19 47 U.S.C. § 153 ...................................................... 2, 17 47 U.S.C. § 201 .................................................. passim 47 U.S.C. § 206 ...................................................... 3, 12 47 U.S.C. § 207 .......................................................... 10 47 U.S.C. § 208 ...................................................... 3, 10 In the Supreme Court of the United States SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., Petitioner, v. CENTURYTEL OF CHATHAM, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Sprint Communications Company