Justia Communications Law Opinion Summaries

This action stemmed from the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC") "ISP Remand Order", which imposed a new compensation regime for ISP-bound traffic, i.e., internet service provider-bound traffic. Plaintiff, which was a competitive local exchange carrier ("CLEC"), maintained that the ISP Remand Order applied when the carrier originating the call and the carrier terminating the call were both CLECs. Defendant and the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") contended that the ISP Remand Order's compensation regime applied only to traffic between a CLEC and an incumbent local exchange carrier ("ILEC"). CPUC agreed with defendant's limited reading of the reach of the compensation regime, finding it inapplicable to the ISP-bound traffic originating with plaintiff and terminated by defendant, and so it assessed against plaintiff charges consistent with defendant's state-filed tariff. Plaintiff then sued defendant and the CPUC in federal district court, alleging that the ISP Remand Order preempted their attempts to assess plaintiff charges for ISP-bound traffic based on state-filed tariffs. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant and CPUC, agreeing with their argument that the ISP Remand Order did not apply to CLEC-CLEC traffic. The court agreed with plaintiff and with the analysis contained in an amicus brief filed upon its request by the FCC, that the ISP Remand Order's compensation regime applied to ISP-bound traffic exchanged between two CLECs. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "AT&T Communications of CA, Inc., et al. v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a putative class of retail cable and satellite television subscribers, brought suit against television programmers and distributors alleging that programmers' practice of selling multi-channel cable packages violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. At issue was whether the district court properly granted programmers' and distributors' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint with prejudice because plaintiffs failed to allege any cognizable injury to competition. The court held that the complaint's allegations of reduced choice increased prices addressed only the element of antitrust injury, but not whether plaintiffs have satisfied the pleading standard for an actual violation. Therefore, absent any allegations of an injury to competition, the court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. View "Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

U.S. South Communications, Inc. ("U.S.South"), an issuer of prepaid calling cards, appealed from the judgment entered against it and in favor of GCB Communications, Inc. and Lake Country Communications, Inc. (collectively "GCB"), a payphone service provider ("PSP"), where the district court held that U.S. South owed GCB dial-around compensation for disputed calls "regardless of whether the proper Flex-ANI digits were transmitted." After addressing threshold issues, the court determined that the issue was whether U.S. South was required to pay GCB for completed coinless payphone calls, dial-around calls, if U.S. South did not receive coding digits that would identify the calls as GCB payphone calls. The court concluded that GCB, through its local exchange carrier ("LEC"), must assure that the Flex-ANI was transmitted in the system. Therefore, because the district court did not make findings on this issue because it did not deem it relevant, the question of whether the Flex-ANI codes for the disputed calls were sent into the system by GCB and its LEC must be decided. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.