United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 05-2657
GLOBAL NAPS, INC.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
VERIZON NEW ENGLAND, INC., d/b/a Verizon Massachusetts;
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND ENERGY;
PAUL B. VASINGTON, in his capacity as Commissioner;
JAMES CONNELLY, in his capacity as Commissioner;
W. ROBERT KEATING, in his capacity as Commissioner;
DEIRDRE K. MANNING, in her capacity as Commissioner;
EUGENE J. SULLIVAN, JR., in his capacity as Commissioner,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Howard, Circuit Judge.
Andrew Good, with whom Philip G. Cormier, Good & Cormier,
William J. Rooney, and Jeffrey Melick were on brief, for Global
NAPs, Inc.
Scott H. Angstreich, with whom Bruce P. Beausejour, Keefe B.
Clemons, Sean A. Lev, and Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans &
Figel, P.L.L.C. were on brief, for Verizon New England, Inc.
Thomas A. Barnico, Assistant Attorney General, with whom
Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, and Daniel J. Hammond,
Assistant Attorney General, were on brief, for the Massachusetts
Department of Telecommunications and Energy and its Commissioners.
Joel Marcus, Counsel, Samuel L. Feder, General Counsel, and
Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel, on brief for the
Federal Communications Commission, amicus curiae.
April 11, 2006
LYNCH, Circuit Judge. The Massachusetts Department of
Telecommunications and Energy (DTE), acting as an arbitrator of a
dispute over an interconnection agreement between Verizon New
England, Inc. and Global NAPs, Inc., issued an order requiring
Global NAPs to pay Verizon compensation for certain phone calls;
the amount Global NAPs owes is at least $42 million. The question
before the DTE involved a particular variant on a larger question
of allocation of compensation for telephone calls placed to
internet service providers (ISPs). The larger question has been
addressed in a series of orders from the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). At the heart of this case is one such order, the
ISP Remand Order.
The DTE, in an arbitration order, required Global NAPs to
pay Verizon access charges for all "virtual NXX" traffic, including
non-local ISP-bound traffic, rejecting Global NAPs' argument that
state commissions were preempted by the ISP Remand Order from
regulating intercarrier compensation for all ISP-bound traffic.
Global NAPs filed suit challenging the DTE's conclusion in federal
district court. Verizon and the DTE argued that the DTE retained
authority to decide the issue because the FCC order only preempted
state commission regulation of "local" traffic sent to an ISP, and
the FCC did not hold that virtual NXX traffic is such local
traffic.
-3-
The district court never reached the preemption issue,
because it found that Global NAPs had implicitly consented to the
"jurisdiction" of the DTE to resolve the dispute, and so could not
later challenge the DTE's jurisdiction to impose access charges for
ISP-bound traffic. It granted Verizon and the DTE's motions for
partial summary judgment. No party on appeal agrees with that
reasoning.
In the end, we affirm, though on different grounds. A
party contesting an issue of whether federal law has preempted a
state commission's authority does not waive judicial review of the
argument by first presenting it to the commission in the course of
an arbitration under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Because
the preemption question was not waived, it must be addressed. The
issue is one of federal law over which the federal court exercises
de novo, not deferential, review. We reach the merits and hold
that the FCC did not expressly preempt state regulation of
intercarrier compensation for non-local ISP-bound calls as are
involved here, leaving the DTE free to impose access charges for
such calls under state law.
I.
Regulatory Background
Prior history between these parties is set forth in our
opinions in Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon New England, Inc. (Global
NAPs I), 396 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2005), and Global NAPs, Inc. v.
-4-
Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications & Energy (Global
NAPs II), 427 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2005).
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), Pub. L. No.
104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amended in scattered sections of
47 U.S.C.), was enacted "to end the local telephone monopolies and
create a national telecommunications policy that strongly favored
competition in local telephone markets." Global NAPs I, 396 F.3d
at 18; P.R. Tel. Co. v. Telecomms. Regulatory Bd., 189 F.3d 1, 7
(1st Cir. 1999); see also Verizon Md. Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n,
535 U.S. 635, 638 (2002); AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S.
366, 371 (1999). To achieve this goal, the TCA requires the former
local phone monopolies, called incumbent local exchange carriers
(ILECs), to allow competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) to
interconnect with their networks. See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2).
Interconnection permits customers of one local exchange carrier to
make calls to, and receive calls from, customers of other local
exchange carriers. Global NAPs II, 427 F.3d at 36. The TCA also
requires the ILECs to negotiate in good faith the terms of
interconnection agreements with the CLECs. See 47 U.S.C.
§ 251(c)(1). "These agreements provide the terms of
interconnection and 'fulfill the duties' enumerated in § 251."
Global NAPs II, 427 F.3d at 37 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(1)).
Section 252 prescribes the process by which
interconnection agreements are to be formed. 47 U.S.C. § 252.
-5-
Under this provision, if negotiations between local exchange
carriers do not result in a final agreement, either party can
petition the relevant state commission to arbitrate unresolved
issues. See id. § 252(b)(1). The state commission must limit its
consideration of the agreement to the matters specifically
presented in the petition for arbitration and in the response. See
id. § 252(b)(4)(A). The state commission has "the authority to
decide the open issues between the parties, and to impose
conditions on the parties for the implementation of the terms of
arbitration into an agreement," Global NAPs I, 396 F.3d at 19
(citing 47 U.S.C. § 252(b)(4)(C)), so long as its resolutions are
consistent with § 251 and any regulations promulgated by the FCC,
see 47 U.S.C. §§ 252(c)(1), 253(a). Once an agreement is
concluded, it is submitted to the state commission for final
approval. Id. § 252(e).
State commission decisions are subject to judicial review
in federal court under 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6):
In any case in which a State commission makes
a determination under this section, any party
aggrieved by such determination may bring an
action in an appropriate Federal district
court to determine whether the agreement or
statement meets the requirements of section
251 of this title and this section.
A. Reciprocal Compensation and Access Charges
The underlying issue on appeal is whether, as Global NAPs
argues, the FCC's ISP Remand Order preempted state commissions from
-6-
regulating intercarrier compensation for all ISP-bound calls.
Verizon and the DTE take the position that the FCC only expressly
preempted state regulation of intercarrier compensation for "local"
ISP-bound calls. This issue requires a brief discussion of the
distinction between local and "interexchange" calling and the
different mechanisms of intercarrier compensation that apply to
them.
The FCC and the DTE have maintained a distinction between
"local" and "interexchange" traffic. See Local Competition
Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Local Competition
Order) ¶¶ 1033-35, 11 F.C.C.R. 15499, 16012-14 (1996) (drawing the
distinction). Local traffic stays within the boundaries of a local
calling area. Interexchange (or "non-local") traffic crosses the
boundaries of a local calling area and is generally subject to toll
or long-distance charges paid by the calling party.1
Traditionally, local calling areas have been geographically
defined.
1
Interexchange traffic consists of so-called "local toll"
calls, which cross the boundaries of local calling areas but remain
within a local access and transport area (LATA), and "long
distance" calls, which cross the boundaries of LATAs. See SBC
Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, 407 F.3d 1223, 1227 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
("IntraLATA service is what consumers generally know as local
service; intraLATA 'toll' calls, however, encompass those long-
distance calls that do not travel beyond the borders of a single
LATA."); SBC Commc'ns, Inc. v. FCC, 154 F.3d 226, 231 n.3 (5th Cir
1998); Mich. Bell Tel. Co. v. Chapelle, 222 F. Supp. 2d 905, 909
n.6 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
-7-
Intercarrier compensation comes into play whenever two or
more carriers collaborate to complete a phone call. Whether a call
is "local" or "interexchange" generally makes a difference in what
regime of intercarrier compensation -- reciprocal compensation or
access charges -- applies to that call.
The TCA requires interconnecting local exchange carriers
(LECs) to establish "reciprocal compensation arrangements," 47
U.S.C. § 251(b)(5), under which the originating LEC compensates the
terminating LEC for the transport and termination of
telecommunications traffic. See Global NAPs II, 427 F.3d at 36
(citing 47 C.F.R. § 51.701). The FCC, in its initial regulations
implementing the TCA, limited reciprocal compensation obligations
"to [telecommunications] traffic that originates and terminates
within a local area," leaving interexchange calls outside the
reciprocal compensation regime. See Local Competition Order
¶ 1034, 11 F.C.C.R at 16013; see also Global NAPs II, 427 F.3d at
36-37.
In those regulations, the FCC made clear that it was
leaving in place the pre-existing access charge regime that applied
to interexchange calls:
[A]s a legal matter, . . . transport and
termination of local traffic are different
services than access service for long distance
telecommunications. . . . The [TCA] preserves
the legal distinctions between charges for
transport and termination of local traffic and
interstate and intrastate charges for
terminating long-distance traffic.
-8-
Local Competition Order ¶ 1033, 11 F.C.C.R. at 16012-13;
see also id. ¶ 1035, 11 F.C.C.R. at 16013 ("Traffic originating or
terminating outside of the applicable local area would be subject
to interstate and intrastate access charges.").
Importantly, the FCC's initial TCA regulations also
reaffirmed the ability of states to regulate intrastate access
charges. As a result, Verizon's intrastate access charge tariffs
for all phone calls are approved by the DTE.
In its initial TCA regulations, the FCC also left with
the state commissions the power to define local calling areas
"consistent with [their] historical practice of defining local
service areas for wireline LECs," and decided that the states
should "determine whether intrastate transport and termination of
traffic between competing LECs, where a portion of their local
service areas are not the same, should be governed by section
251(b)(5)'s reciprocal compensation obligations or whether
intrastate access charges should apply to the portions of their
local service areas that are different." Id. ¶ 1035, 11 F.C.C.R.
at 16013.
B. Global NAPs' VNXX System
Under the traditional system for rating calls, whether a
call is "local" or "interexchange" depends on geographically
defined local calling areas. The DTE established the existing
geographic local calling area structure for Massachusetts after a
-9-
generic proceeding "in which all interested Parties had the
opportunity to comment." Verizon implements this system by
comparing the "NXX" numbers (the "NXX" is the middle three digits
of a ten-digit phone number) of the caller and the recipient. The
"NXX" has generally been associated with a particular "switch"
(that is, the equipment that routes phone calls to their
destination) physically located within a local calling area; NXXs
have thus served as proxies for geographic location. This means
that if the NXX numbers of the caller and the recipient were within
the same local calling area, one could assume that the caller and
recipient were actually physically within the same calling area and
bill the call as a local call.
Global NAPs has the ability to assign its customers
"virtual" NXXs (VNXX), so that a Global NAPs customer can be given
VNXX numbers that are different than those that would normally be
assigned to him based on his physical location. This allows a
party to call what appears to be a "local" number, although behind
the scenes that call is actually routed to a different local
calling area. When the party making such a call is a Verizon
customer, the call is transmitted outside the local calling area by
Verizon.
Many of Global NAPs' ISP customers use VNXX arrangements,
and many of these ISPs' end-user customers use Verizon for local
phone service. To access the Internet, the end-user dials in to a
-10-
VNXX number assigned to his or her own local calling area. Then,
Verizon transports the call across local calling areas to Global
NAPs' point of interconnection with the Verizon network. Global
NAPs and Verizon agree that "[u]nder VNXX arrangements, the Verizon
end user's call to the ISP's server is toll-free [to the end user]
whether or not the ISP's server is located in the same local
exchange area in which the end-user originates the call." (emphasis
added).
C. The ISP Traffic Debate
The treatment of intercarrier compensation for ISP-bound
traffic has been a matter of considerable debate in recent years.
Calls to ISPs tend to be long, and generally go exclusively from
the ISP customer to the ISP. This has created opportunities for
regulatory arbitrage. For example, in the context of reciprocal
compensation, since reciprocal compensation flows from the LEC
whose customer makes the phone call to the LEC whose customer
receives the phone call, an LEC with a high proportion of ISP
customers -- as Global NAPs has -- stands to gain a windfall in a
reciprocal compensation scheme which includes traffic to an ISP.
See Global NAPs II, 427 F.3d at 37 (citing Bell Atl. Tel. Cos. v.
FCC, 206 F.3d 1, 2-3 (D.C. Cir. 2000)).2
2
Global NAPs II involved the question of whether the
interpretation of a provision of an interconnection agreement by
one state commission precluded a different interpretation by
another state commission of an identically worded provision. 427
F.3d at 48-49. That case involved a different interconnection
-11-
The FCC has issued several orders related to intercarrier
compensation for ISP-bound traffic. In 1999, the FCC ruled that
ISP-bound traffic was not subject to reciprocal compensation
obligations under 47 U.S.C. § 251, although it left to state
commissions the ability to conclude "pursuant to contractual
principles or other legal or equitable considerations, that
reciprocal compensation is an appropriate interim . . . rule"
pending final FCC rulemaking on the matter. Local Competition
Provisions in the Telecomms. Act of 1996 (Internet Traffic Order)
¶¶ 26, 27, 14 F.C.C.R. 3689, 3705-06 (1999).
The D.C. Circuit vacated the Internet Traffic Order on
March 24, 2000 and remanded to the FCC, "finding that the FCC's
rationale for treating ISP-bound traffic as interstate traffic for
the purposes of reciprocal compensation was inadequate." Global
NAPs II, 427 F.3d at 39 (citing Bell Atl. Tel. Cos., 206 F.3d at
9). On April 27, 2001, the FCC issued an order in response to the
D.C. Circuit's remand, holding once again that the "provisions of
section 251(b)(5) do not extend to ISP-bound traffic" but resting
its decision on a different legal ground. Local Competition
Provisions in the Telecomms. Act of 1996 (ISP Remand Order) ¶ 1-2,
16 F.C.C.R. 9151, 9153 (2001). The FCC also provided an interim
intercarrier compensation regime for at least some ISP-bound
traffic to supplant existing state regimes going forward. This
agreement than that at issue here. See id. at 36 n.1.
-12-
interim regime was meant to limit opportunities for regulatory
arbitrage. It is undisputed that this interim regime preempts
state commission regulation of intercarrier compensation for local
ISP-bound calls. The question here is whether the preemptive
effect extends to the interexchange ISP-bound calls at issue here.
The D.C. Circuit held that the FCC's new legal grounds as
expressed in the ISP Remand Order were still inadequate. See
WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 288 F.3d 429, 433-34 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
However, it chose not to vacate the FCC order, and so the ISP
Remand Order remains in force. See Global NAPs II, 427 F.3d at 40
(citing WorldCom, Inc., 288 F.3d at 434; Verizon Md. Inc. v. Global
NAPs, Inc., 377 F.3d 355, 367 (4th Cir. 2004)).
Simultaneously to the release of the ISP Remand Order,
the FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to consider whether
it should reconsider the system of intercarrier compensation for
all calls, including calls to ISPs. See Developing a Unified
Intercarrier Compensation Regime (Intercarrier Compensation NPRM),
16 F.C.C.R. 9610 (2001); see also Developing a Unified Intercarrier
Compensation Regime (Intercarrier Compensation FNPRM), 20 F.C.C.R.
4685 (2005) (further notice of proposed rulemaking).
II.
Procedural History
Verizon and Global NAPs began the negotiation process for
a new interconnection agreement in 2002. Global NAPs I, 396 F.3d
-13-
at 19-20. On July 30, 2002, Global NAPs filed a petition for
arbitration with the DTE for resolution of a number of open
disputes concerning the proposed interconnection agreement, id. at
20, including whether VNXX calls should be treated as local or
interexchange for purposes of intercarrier compensation. Included
with this petition was a marked-up version of the interconnection
agreement, reflecting Global NAPs' proposed changes. Verizon filed
its response to Global NAPs' petition on August 22, 2002, including
its own marked-up version of the interconnection agreement. The
parties filed direct testimony with the DTE on September 10, 2002.
An evidentiary hearing was held on October 9, 2002, and the parties
submitted briefs on October 21, 28, and 30, 2002.
With respect to the VNXX issue, Global NAPs argued that
allowing Verizon to impose access charges on such calls would
thwart technological advances. Indeed, Global NAPs argued that
VNXX traffic should be treated as local traffic, and therefore be
subject to the state reciprocal compensation regime or, to the
extent the traffic was ISP-bound, the federal interim compensation
regime. As detailed below, during the course of the administrative
proceedings Global NAPs also made clear its position that the ISP
Remand Order had preempted the DTE's authority to regulate
intercarrier compensation for all ISP-bound traffic, while leaving
in place the DTE's ability to regulate intercarrier compensation
for other intrastate calls.
-14-
Verizon argued that the entire VNXX system was simply a
way for Global NAPs to engage in regulatory arbitrage. In effect,
Verizon argued, Global NAPs' VNXX system was a way to provide toll-
free services to Verizon customers (so that Verizon would not get
any fees from those customers), deprive Verizon of the access fees
it would normally get for toll-free calls, and instead require
Verizon to pay Global NAPs reciprocal compensation.
The DTE issued an order on December 12, 2002, resolving
all open issues. With respect to the VNXX issue, the DTE rejected
Global NAPs' position that all VNXX calls be treated as local for
intercarrier compensation purposes. It found Global NAPs' position
would create "considerable market distortion based on an implicit
Verizon subsidy of [Global NAPs'] operations." Instead, the DTE
decided that "VNXX calls will be rated as local or toll based on
the geographic end points of the call." It further found that
Verizon's proposal to have the parties collaborate to determine the
geographic end points of VNXX calls was "an acceptable starting
point," and ordered the parties to submit contract language with
the final agreement to implement Verizon's solution.
The DTE also rejected Global NAPs' arguments based on the
ISP Remand Order, finding that the order "explicitly recognized
that intrastate access regimes in place prior to the Act remain
unchanged until further state commission action" and "continues to
recognize that calls that travel to points beyond the local
-15-
exchange are access calls." The DTE expressed its intent to
continue enforcement of the existing intrastate access charge
regime.
The DTE ordered the parties to incorporate the arbitrated
terms into a final interconnection agreement by January 2, 2003;
this deadline was later extended to January 17, 2003 on the
parties' joint motion. Global NAPs I, 396 F.3d at 20 After the
DTE issued its December 12 order, the parties began negotiating
final terms of interconnection. However, on January 9, 2003,
Global NAPs informed Verizon that it refused to negotiate any
further. Instead, it attempted to adopt the terms of a different
agreement between Verizon and Sprint.3 Id.
Verizon responded on January 17, 2003 by filing a motion
for approval of a final arbitrated agreement, attaching a proposed
final agreement. Id. This agreement contained the following
provision, § 7.3.8, to deal with the VNXX compensation issue:
"[Global NAPs] shall pay Verizon's originating access charges for
all [VNXX] Traffic originated by a Verizon Customer, and [Global
NAPs] shall pay Verizon's terminating access charges for all [VNXX]
traffic originated by a [Global NAPs] customer." It is this
provision of the agreement that Global NAPs challenges, to the
3
"[T]he TCA requires ILECs to allow any requesting CLEC to
adopt the terms and conditions of any interconnection agreement it
has with any other CLEC, provided that agreement has been approved
by the requisite state telecommunications commission." Global NAPs
I, 396 F.3d at 19 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 252(i)).
-16-
extent that it requires payment of access charges for ISP-bound
traffic.
In a February 19, 2003 order, the DTE rebuffed Global
NAPs' attempt to opt into the Verizon-Sprint agreement. Id. It
approved Verizon's proposed final agreement and ordered the parties
to sign and file that agreement. The parties eventually4 filed a
final agreement on March 18, 2003, including § 7.3.8, and it is the
agreement currently in effect between the parties.
In the meantime, on December 30, 2002, Global NAPs
brought an action in federal district court challenging the merits
of the DTE's arbitration determination. Global NAPs I, 396 F.3d at
20. In its complaint, Global NAPs asserted that the DTE "lacked
jurisdiction to impose access charges on ISP bound traffic." It
also complained that the DTE's reasoning, at least with respect to
ISP-bound traffic, was "wholly at odds with the ISP Remand Order."5
The February 19, 2003 ruling by the DTE rejecting Global NAPs'
attempt to opt in to the Sprint-Verizon agreement led Global NAPs
to file a second action in district court, on March 3, 2003.
4
On March 14, 2003, the DTE, noting that the Global NAPs had
still not complied with its February 19, 2003 order, directed the
parties to file a fully executed interconnection agreement.
5
In its complaint, Global NAPs challenged a number of other
determinations made by the DTE, including the imposition of
transport costs on Global NAPs and the rejection of Global NAPs'
proposal to expand local calling areas. On October 28, 2005, after
the district court's summary judgment decision leading to this
appeal, Global NAPs stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of
its remaining challenges to the DTE's decision.
-17-
On March 11, 2003, Global NAPs, Verizon and the DTE moved
to consolidate Global NAPs' two federal actions, and asked the
district court to first resolve the question of whether Global NAPs
was permitted to opt in to the Sprint-Verizon agreement before
ruling on the challenge to the arbitration agreement. On May 12,
2004, the district court affirmed the DTE's decision not to allow
Global NAPs to opt in to the Sprint-Verizon agreement. Global NAPs
I, 396 F.3d at 21. On January 19, 2005, in Global NAPs I, we
affirmed that judgment. Id. at 28.
Global NAPs then revived its challenge to the DTE's
December 12, 2002 arbitration order by filing a motion for partial
summary judgment in the district court on May 20, 2005.6 Global
NAPs argued that in the ISP Remand Order, "[t]he FCC expressed in
unambiguous language its intention to assert exclusive jurisdiction
over intercarrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic." Thus, it
argued, the DTE lacked the authority to require Global NAPs to
enter into an interconnection agreement that included § 7.3.8,
which required Global NAPs pay Verizon access charges for all VNXX
6
After this court's opinion in Global NAPs I, Verizon
demanded that Global NAPs pay the accrued access charges that
Global NAPs had failed to pay during the pendency of litigation.
As of February 2005, according to Verizon, Global NAPs had accrued
more than $42 million in unpaid access charges. Verizon threatened
to cut off service to Global NAPs if payment was not made. Global
NAPs filed for a preliminary injunction in the district court, and
the district court granted that request, on the condition that
Global NAPs post a $1 million bond, and expedited the briefing
schedule for the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.
-18-
traffic, including traffic bound for ISPs.7 Global NAPs based its
preemption argument solely on the FCC's ISP Remand Order.
Verizon and the DTE filed motions for partial summary
judgment in response, arguing that the ISP Remand Order did not
preempt the DTE from imposing access charges for non-local ISP-
bound traffic, but dealt only with the narrow issue of reciprocal
compensation for ISP-bound calls within a local calling area.
On September 21, 2005, the district court granted Verizon
and the DTE's motions for partial summary judgment. The district
court correctly noted that it was "unclear" whether the ISP Remand
Order preempted state commissions from imposing access charges on
all ISP-bound traffic. But it did not reach the merits of that
question; it held that since Global NAPs "voluntarily sought
arbitration by DTE after the FCC issued the ISP Remand Order and
thus impliedly consented to DTE's jurisdiction over its petition,
it may not now challenge DTE's authority on the basis of unsettled
law in order to avoid the consequences of its own business
strategy."
Global NAPs appeals, arguing (1) that it did not waive
any claim regarding the preemptive effect of the FCC's ISP Remand
7
Global NAPs argued that its petition for arbitration did not
raise the issue of whether access charges could be imposed on ISP-
bound traffic, and so, under 47 U.S.C. § 252(b)(4)(A), the DTE
could not decide the issue. The district court rejected this
argument, finding that it was sufficient that Global NAPs had
raised the issue of access charges for VNXX traffic generally to
the DTE. Global NAPs does not press this argument on appeal.
-19-
Order or impliedly consent to the DTE's authority to decide the
issue which had been preempted by the ISP Remand Order, and so the
district court erred in not reaching the merits of its claim; and
(2) that this court should reach the merits and find that the ISP
Remand Order preempts the DTE from imposing access charges for ISP-
bound traffic.8
III.
The District Court's "Jurisdictional" Holding
The district court's conclusion that Global NAPs could
not obtain review of the DTE's preemption decision, because Global
NAPs had "impliedly consented to the DTE's jurisdiction over its
petition," was error. The issue of preemption was squarely
presented to the DTE, the DTE decided this issue of federal law,
and Global NAPs challenged that decision before the district court.
The district court should have reviewed the DTE's conclusion, as it
would any other conclusion of federal law by a state commission.
Global NAPs admits that in its petition for arbitration,
it did not explicitly spell out its views with respect to
8
On November 1, 2005, Global NAPs moved this court to issue
a preliminary injunction to stop Verizon from cutting off service
pending appeal. On November 2, 2005, we issued an order enjoining
Verizon from cutting off service to Global NAPs, conditioned on
Global NAPs' payment of additional security in an amount determined
by the district court, and expedited our review. The district
court, on November 9, 2005, entered an order requiring $15 million
in additional security, which Global NAPs posted on November 14,
2005.
-20-
intercarrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic,9 but points to a
number of instances during the administrative proceedings in which
it did. In testimony during the hearing before the DTE on October
9, 2005, Global NAPs' expert, Lee Selwyn, testified with respect to
the VNXX issue as follows:
Let me first preface my remarks on [the VNXX
issue] by making the point that we are
speaking here of traffic originating by
Verizon customers, terminating to Global NAPs,
that is not ISP-bound traffic. ISP-bound
traffic is not subject to any treatment other
than the reciprocal-compensation arrangement
as set forth in the FCC's ISP Remand Order.
In its brief to the DTE after the hearing, Global NAPs reiterated
this point:
In the ISP Remand Order, the FCC determined
that inter-carrier compensation for ISP-bound
traffic is solely within the jurisdiction of
the FCC and that on a going forward basis,
state commissions have been preempted from
addressing the issue. Thus the Department has
no jurisdiction to impose access charges or
other limitations on ISP in-bound
traffic. . . . The Arbitration Order should
be clear that the Interconnection Agreement is
not intended to regulate inter-carrier
compensation for ISP-bound traffic in any
manner.
Global NAPs made the same argument in its reply brief to the DTE
and in a February 27, 2003 letter to the DTE after the DTE issued
its December 12, 2002 order. The DTE rejected these arguments,
9
Global NAPs states that it did not do so because it was
laboring under the impression that there was no real dispute on the
issue.
-21-
requiring Global NAPs to pay access charges to Verizon for ISP-
bound VNXX traffic under the intrastate tariffs.
Global NAPs also argues that it could not voluntarily
consent to the jurisdiction of the DTE to determine access charges,
because the TCA requires arbitration before the DTE under 47 U.S.C.
§ 252(b) when negotiation leaves open issues, and because "[t]he
DTE may not enlarge its own subject matter jurisdiction beyond that
granted to it by the Act and FCC rulings implementing the TCA.
Neither may DTE jurisdiction be expanded by agreement of DTE
litigants."
Global NAPs' use of the phraseology of jurisdiction may
have led to some confusion. Questions about federal preemption of
state law in this context may or may not be properly thought of as
"jurisdictional" in nature. Cf. Wolf v. Reliance Standard Life
Ins. Co., 71 F.3d 444, 446-49 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that ERISA
preemption is not jurisdictional but a waivable affirmative
defense).
In the end, however the claim is characterized, Global
NAPs properly presented an issue of federal preemption to the DTE,
and the DTE rejected Global NAPs' argument. This does not mean it
waived federal court review of the DTE's conclusion on that
question. See Global NAPs I, 396 F.3d at 21-22 ("[T]he federal
courts have subject matter jurisdiction to review state agency
determinations under the TCA for compliance with federal law,
-22-
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331."); United States v. R.I. Insurers'
Insolvency Fund, 80 F.3d 616, 619 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[A] federal
preemption ruling presents a pure question of law subject to
plenary review.").
IV.
Preemptive Effect of the ISP Remand Order
We reach the merits of Global NAPs' claim, confining
ourselves to the record before the agency. This case presents a
pure issue of law and the parties have asked us to decide it.
Furthermore, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
See Torres-Rosado v. Rotger-Sabat, 335 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2003).
Before reaching the merits of Global NAPs' claim,
however, we must deal with an issue raised by the DTE, but rejected
by Verizon, regarding the appropriate standard of review of state
commission conclusions of federal law made pursuant to an
arbitration under 47 U.S.C. § 252(b).
A. Standard of Review of the DTE's Determination of
Preemption Issue
The DTE argues that "judicial review of an interpretation
of the [TCA] by a state commission in an arbitration should be
limited to the question whether the state commission's
interpretation of the [TCA] is reasonable."10 The DTE draws an
10
To the extent the DTE is arguing for a broad, Chevron-like
deference to the state agency whenever it has made a determination
regarding the meaning of an FCC order, see Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), that line of
-23-
analogy to the deferential standard of review given arbitral awards
under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), as expressed in cases like
JCI Communications, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 103, 324 F.3d 42, 48 (1st Cir. 2003).
The DTE argues that because Congress used the term
"arbitration" in § 252(b), we should treat state commission
arbitral decisions with the same deference as arbitral decisions
under the FAA, which predates the TCA. The DTE points out that
Congress used terms other than "arbitration" to describe other
types of actions taken by state commissions.
The DTE's position has no basis either in the TCA, its
legislative history, or in case law. The DTE points to nothing
more than the use of the term "arbitration" in the TCA. The DTE's
argument, furthermore, is in flat conflict with our holding in
Global NAPs I, where, in the context of review of a decision
pursuant to an arbitration, we held that determinations of federal
law by state agencies under the TCA were subject to de novo review.
See 396 F.3d at 23. We noted in Global NAPs I that "[e]ach of the
Circuits that has addressed the standard of review under the TCA
has held that where the state agency determination rests
reasoning has already been foreclosed by this court in Global NAPs
I: "Since the FCC, and not the individual state commissions, is the
agency with the power granted by Congress to administer the TCA,
through the formulation of policy, rulemaking, and regulation, we
do not afford deference to the DTE's interpretation of the statute
under [Chevron]." 396 F.3d at 23 n.7.
-24-
principally on an interpretation of the TCA, de novo review is
applied." Id. at 23 n.8. A number of circuits have reached this
conclusion in the context of federal court review of state
commission arbitrations under the TCA. See, e.g., MCI Telecomms.
Corp. v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 376 F.3d 539, 548 (6th Cir. 2004) (de
novo review of questions of federal law after state commission
arbitration); Ind. Bell Tel. Co. v. McCarty, 362 F.3d 378, 383 (7th
Cir. 2004) (same); MCImetro Access Transmission Servs., Inc. v.
BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 352 F.3d 872, 876 (4th Cir. 2003)
(same).
The DTE states that it "does not seek consideration of
broader questions [than review of arbitration] regarding the proper
standard of judicial review for other determinations by state
commissions under the [TCA]." If we were to accept the DTE's
position, it would create a strange result. The standard of review
would vary not by the nature of the question presented
(interpretations of the TCA) but by the nature of the proceeding in
which the question is presented. Thus, under the DTE's view, a
state commission's conclusions of federal law when it is acting as
an arbitrator under § 252(b) would be subject to deferential
review, but the very same conclusions about the TCA made pursuant
to other state commission proceedings, such as the § 252(e)
approval process, would be subject to de novo review. Congress
-25-
surely did not intend such an odd result merely by using the term
"arbitration" in the TCA.
We review de novo the DTE's conclusion that the ISP
Remand Order did not preempt its authority to regulate access
charges for interexchange VNXX ISP-bound traffic. Cf. Nat'l Tower,
LLC v. Plainville Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 297 F.3d 14, 22 (1st Cir.
2002) (holding that issues based on specified provisions of the TCA
"present questions that a federal district court determines in the
first instance without any deference to the [local zoning] board").
B. Preemption
"The Supremacy Clause of Art. VI of the Constitution
provides Congress with the power to pre-empt state law." La. Pub.
Serv. Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 368 (1986). "Pre-emption may
result not only from action taken by Congress itself; a federal
agency acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated
authority may pre-empt state regulation."11 Id. at 369; see also
City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57, 64 (1988) ("[I]n proper
circumstances the agency may determine that its authority is
exclusive and pre-empts any state efforts to regulate in the
forbidden area.").
11
There is no claim that the TCA itself either expressly or
impliedly preempts the state regulation in question here. See
Grant's Dairy-Me., LLC v. Comm'r of Me. Dep't of Agric., Food &
Rural Res., 232 F.3d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 2000) (describing branches of
preemption doctrine).
-26-
In arguing for a broad reading of the ISP Remand Order,
Global NAPs points to language in the order which suggests that all
ISP-bound traffic is subject to the FCC's jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
ISP Remand Order ¶ 1, 16 F.C.C.R. at 9153 ("[W]e reaffirm our
previous conclusion [in the Internet Traffic Order] that traffic
delivered to an ISP is predominantly interstate access traffic
subject to [the FCC's jurisdiction]."); id. ¶ 57, 16 F.C.C.R. at
9177-78 (finding that ISP-bound traffic is "properly characterized
as interstate access" and thus is subject to FCC jurisdiction).
Even assuming that this language could cover the non-local
ISP-bound calls at issue here, it does not help answer the question
before us. A matter may be subject to FCC jurisdiction, without
the FCC having exercised that jurisdiction and preempted state
regulation. The question before us is whether the FCC intended in
the ISP Remand Order to exercise its jurisdiction over the precise
issue here, to the exclusion of state regulation. See Qwest Corp.
v. Scott, 380 F.3d 367, 372 (8th Cir. 2004) ("There is no dispute
in this case that the FCC has the power to preempt states from
establishing standards and requiring reports relating to special
access services. The fighting issue is whether the FCC actually
intended to do so . . . .").
In this context, the law requires a clear indication that
an agency intends to preempt state regulation. Hillsborough County
v. Automated Med. Labs. Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 718 (1985) ("[B]ecause
-27-
agencies normally address problems in a detailed manner and can
speak through a variety of means, . . . we can expect that they
will make their intentions clear if they intend for their
regulations to be exclusive."); see also Qwest Corp., 380 F.3d at
374 (finding no preemption of state regulation where FCC
regulations were "notably agnostic" on the question).12
The requirement of a clear indication of the agency's
intent to preempt is especially important in the context of the
TCA, which "divide[d] authority among the FCC and the state
commissions in an unusual regime of 'cooperative federalism,' with
the intended effect of leaving state commissions free, where
warranted, to reflect the policy choices made by their states."
Global NAPs II, 427 F.3d at 46 (quoting P.R. Tel. Co. v. Telecomms.
Regulatory Bd., 189 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 1999)). As we noted in
Global NAPs II, "[t]he goal of preserving a role for the state
regulatory commissions is reflected in a number of provisions in
the TCA." Id. at 46-47.
Also relevant is Congress's express pre-TCA instruction
that "nothing in this chapter [including 47 U.S.C. §§ 251, 252]
shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction
12
This requirement of clarity applies to express preemption,
see Hillsborough County, 471 U.S. at 713, and to certain types of
implied preemption, see id. at 718 (describing requirements of
"field" preemption); Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861,
881, 885 (2000) (conflict preemption should not be found "too
readily in the absence of clear evidence").
-28-
with respect to . . . charges, classifications, practices,
services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with
intrastate communication service by wire or radio of any carrier."
47 U.S.C. § 152(b); see also La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 476 U.S. at
370, 379 (relying on § 152(b) to find that the FCC could not
preempt state law depreciation regulation).
With these principles in mind, we turn to the facts of
this case. Global NAPs does not challenge the DTE's determination
that whether a call is local or "interexchange" should be based on
the geographic endpoints of the call, or the decision to impose
access charges on non-ISP-bound VNXX calls. Rather, the challenge
is to the DTE's imposition of access charges on that subset of VNXX
calls that are bound for an ISP. Global NAPs argues that we should
determine the scope of preemption by limiting our examination to
the text of the ISP Remand Order. Verizon and the DTE13 ask us to
also consider the context in which the order was passed and the
regulatory objectives of the order; they argue that the FCC only
intended to preempt state regulation of intercarrier compensation
for local ISP-bound traffic and did not address the question before
the DTE.
13
The DTE has joined almost all of Verizon's arguments on the
merits. At oral argument, the DTE explained that it did not wish
to join Verizon's arguments to the extent that they reached outside
the scope of the arbitration between the parties.
-29-
Regardless of which approach is used, the ISP Remand
Order does not clearly preempt state authority to impose access
charges for interexchange VNXX ISP-bound traffic; it is, at best,
ambiguous on the question, and ambiguity is not enough to preempt
state regulation here.
Global NAPs cannot point to any language in the order
that explicitly preempts state regulation of access charges for the
non-local ISP-bound traffic at issue. Instead, Global NAPs'
central argument is that, in preempting state regulation of
intercarrier compensation for ISP-bound traffic in the ISP Remand
Order, the FCC did not expressly limit itself to traffic
originating and terminating within a local calling area. It
suggests that the interim federal regime of intercarrier
compensation established by the ISP Remand Order actually applies
to all ISP-bound calls, so that the preemptive effect of the order
should extend to the access charges at issue here. Global NAPs
points in particular to paragraph 82 of the ISP Remand Order, in
which the FCC stated:
The interim compensation regime we establish
here applies as carriers renegotiate expired
or expiring interconnection agreements. . . .
This Order does not preempt any state
commission decision regarding compensation for
ISP-bound traffic for the period prior to the
effective date of the interim regime we adopt
here. Because we now exercise our authority
under section 201 to determine the appropriate
intercarrier compensation for ISP-bound
traffic, however, state commissions will no
longer have authority to address this issue.
-30-
ISP Remand Order ¶ 82, 16 F.C.C.R. at 9189. It argues that if the
FCC intended only to preempt state regulation of reciprocal
compensation for local ISP-bound traffic, it would have expressed
its intent more clearly, by specifying "local ISP-bound traffic."14
Global NAPs' argument ignores an important distinction.
The FCC has consistently maintained a distinction between local and
"interexchange" calling and the intercarrier compensation regimes
that apply to them, and reaffirmed that states have authority over
intrastate access charge regimes. Against the FCC's policy of
recognizing such a distinction, a clearer showing is required that
the FCC preempted state regulation of both access charges and
reciprocal compensation for ISP-bound traffic. Cf. Shaw's
Supermarkets, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 884 F.2d 34, 36 (1st Cir. 1989)
("The law that governs an agency's significant departure from its
own prior precedent is clear. The agency cannot do so without
explicitly recognizing that it is doing so and explaining why.").
Indeed, in the ISP Remand Order itself, the FCC
reaffirmed the distinction between reciprocal compensation and
access charges. It noted that Congress, in passing the TCA, did
not intend to disrupt the pre-TCA access charge regime, under which
14
Global NAPs also argues that we "confirmed" the preemptive
effect of the ISP Remand Order in Global NAPs II, in which we said
that the "FCC . . . made clear that it had exclusive regulatory
authority to address the issue, so that state commissions no longer
have the power to do the same." 427 F.3d at 40. This was not a
holding of the case; rather, it appeared in the background section
of the opinion and merely paraphrased ¶ 82 of the ISP Remand Order.
-31-
"LECs provided access services . . . in order to connect calls that
travel to points -- both interstate and intrastate -- beyond the
local exchange. In turn, both the Commission and the states had in
place access regimes applicable to this traffic, which they have
continued to modify over time." ISP Remand Order ¶ 37, 16 F.C.C.R.
at 9168.
Furthermore, the context in which the ISP Remand Order
was issued casts additional doubt on Global NAPs' contention. The
Supreme Court has held that in interpreting its own prior cases
"[i]t is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expressions,
in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in
which those expressions are used." See Cent. Va. Cmty. Coll. v.
Katz, 126 S.Ct. 990, 996 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 399-400
(1821)). Such a rule also properly applies to interpretations of
agency orders, especially where the order itself details the
background against which it was passed. See Qwest Corp., 380 F.3d
at 373-74 ("The FCC's statement . . . is susceptible of a broader
interpretation if plucked out of context, but we conclude that when
the [FCC order] is read as a whole, the [FCC's] expressed intent to
preempt state regulation does not extend to performance
measurements and standards.").
The issue that necessitated FCC action in the Internet
Traffic Order and the ISP Remand Order was "whether reciprocal
-32-
compensation obligations apply to the delivery of calls from one
LEC's end-user customer to an ISP in the same local calling area
that is served by a competing LEC." ISP Remand Order ¶ 13, 16
F.C.C.R. at 9159; see also WorldCom, Inc., 288 F.3d at 430 (stating
that the question before the FCC involved "calls made to [ISPs]
located within the caller's local calling area"). The order
expressly holds at a number of points that ISP-bound traffic is not
subject to reciprocal compensation under § 251(b)(5). See ISP
Remand Order ¶ 23, 16 F.C.C.R. at 9163 ("In [the statutory
analysis] section, we reexamine our findings in the [Internet
Traffic Order] and conclude that ISP-bound traffic is not subject
to the reciprocal compensation requirement in section 251(b)
. . . ."); id. ¶ 44, 16 F.C.C.R. at 9172 ("ISP-bound traffic . . .
is excepted from the scope of the 'telecommunications' subject to
reciprocal compensation under section 251(b)(5)."). There is no
express statement that ISP-bound traffic is not subject to access
charges.
In issuing the ISP Remand Order and setting forth the
interim federal intercarrier compensation regime, the FCC was
focused on limiting the problem of regulatory arbitrage. Id. ¶ 77,
16 F.C.C.R. at 9187 (the interim compensation regime "serves to
limit, if not end, the opportunity for regulatory arbitrage"). In
discussing these regulatory arbitrage opportunities, the FCC
mentions only the problems created by requiring reciprocal
-33-
compensation for ISP-bound traffic. Id ¶ 68, 16 F.C.C.R. at 9181-
82 ("Carriers . . . have the incentive to seek out customers,
including but not limited to ISPs, with high volumes of incoming
traffic that will generate high reciprocal compensation
payments.").15
This court invited the FCC to file a brief as amicus
curiae on the question of the preemptive effect of the ISP Remand
Order. The FCC's helpful brief, while not taking a position on the
outcome of this appeal, nonetheless supports the conclusion that
the order did not clearly preempt state regulation of intrastate
access charges. The brief states that "[t]he ISP Remand Order does
not provide a clear answer to [the] question" of whether the order
"was intended to preempt states from establishing" a requirement of
intercarrier compensation for interexchange VNXX ISP-bound calls.
It notes that "[i]n some respects, the ISP Remand Order appears to
address all calls placed to ISPs" but also that "the administrative
history that led up to the ISP Remand Order indicates that in
addressing compensation, the Commission was focused on calls
between dial-up users and ISPs in a single local calling area."
15
Indeed, Verizon suggests that interpreting the ISP Remand
Order as preempting state access charge regulation as well as
reciprocal compensation regulation would create new opportunities
for regulatory arbitrage, by requiring Verizon to pay compensation
on all calls to ISPs, including "toll-free calls to ISPs . . . for
which [ILECs] had previously received compensation under
established rules."
-34-
Thus it concludes that the ISP Remand Order "can be read to support
the interpretation set forth by either party in this dispute."
The FCC further notes that "in establishing the new
compensation scheme for ISP-bound calls, the Commission was
considering only calls placed to ISPs located in the same local
calling area as the caller." According to the FCC, "[t]he
Commission itself has not addressed application of the ISP Remand
Order to ISP-bound calls outside a local calling area" or "decided
the implications of using VNXX numbers for intercarrier
compensation more generally."
In response to the FCC's brief, Global NAPs makes an
argument that the DTE's imposition of access charges on VNXX ISP-
bound traffic "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and
execution of the full objectives of Congress" because the charges
"obstruct the FCC's declared policy of a uniform, rather than
patchwork, approach to the entire field of intercarrier
compensation" and "obstruct the FCC's effort to implement key
policies served by the [TCA]: universal service and competition in
the provision of such service." This particular argument, if
raised at all during initial briefing or oral argument, was barely
done so and may have been waived. See United States v. Zannino,
895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990). Nonetheless, we address the point.
The Supreme Court has stated that, in determining whether
a federal agency regulation impliedly preempts state law because it
-35-
poses an obstacle to federal policy, "a court should not find pre-
emption too readily in the absence of clear evidence of a
conflict." See Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 881,
885 (2000) (finding, in that case, such clear evidence). Global
NAPs does not point us to any clear evidence, in the ISP Remand
Order or elsewhere, that the DTE's imposition of access charges on
interexchange VNXX ISP-bound calls will obstruct the implementation
of federal objectives.
As to the FCC's purported policy of a uniform approach to
the "entire field" of intercarrier compensation, the ISP Remand
Order was focused on a particular issue of intercarrier
compensation; the FCC deferred fuller consideration of a unified
system of intercarrier compensation to a future rulemaking. See
ISP Remand Order ¶ 2, 16 F.C.C.R. at 9153 ("[I]n this Order we
. . . take interim steps to limit the regulatory arbitrage
opportunity presented by ISP-bound traffic while we consider the
broader issues of intercarrier compensation in the [Intercarrier
Compensation NPRM] proceeding."). As to the second point about
access charges serving as an obstacle to the goal of universal
service and competition for that service, Global NAPs says that the
access charges will "virtually eliminate competition in the non-
broadband internet access market." In the face of the FCC's long-
standing recognition of state authority over intrastate access
charges, and in the absence of clear evidence that the access
-36-
charges here would impede competition, this argument is
insufficient to find implied preemption.16
We find that there is a lack of clarity about whether the
ISP Remand Order preempts state regulation of the access charges at
issue here.17 Given the requirement of a clear indication that the
FCC has preempted state law, the ISP Remand Order does not have the
broad preemptive effect that Global NAPs seeks to assign to it.
V.
We affirm the entry of judgment for Verizon and the DTE.
Costs of appeal are awarded to Verizon and the DTE. The case is
remanded to the district court for any further proceedings.
16
Global NAPs, in its reply to the FCC's amicus brief, also
asks us to refer the question of the preemptive effect of the ISP
Remand Order to the FCC under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
This was an argument certainly not discussed in the initial
briefing or at oral argument, and we deem it waived. Zannino, 895
F.2d at 17.
17
Global NAPs relies on a decision by a Connecticut federal
district court, S. New Eng. Tel. Co. v. MCI WorldCom Commc'ns, Inc.
(SNET), 359 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D. Conn. 2005), which held that the
ISP Remand Order was unambiguous in its preemption of state
regulation of intercarrier compensation for all ISP-bound traffic.
Id. at 232. We simply disagree with the SNET court's analysis.
-37-