Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Voice-on-the-net (VON), VoIP, Internet (IP) Telephony -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stephen B. Temple who wrote (2188)	12/17/1998 9:29:00 AM
From: Stephen B. Temple	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3178

Judge Says State PUCs Are Immune from Federal Review Of Interconnection Rulings A federal district judge believes that state commissions are immune from federal judicial review of their decisions regarding carrier interconnection agreements, despite the 1996 Telecommunications Act's delegation of such review to the federal courts. Meanwhile, a federal appeals court is considering the immunity argument in a group of pending cases that were argued last month. Judge Barbara Crabb of the U.S. District Court in Madison, Wis., has issued an "interim order" upholding the Wisconsin Public Service Commission's claims of immunity under the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Before the judge are Ameritech-Wisconsin's challenges of PSC orders regarding the following: (1) The telco's "statement of generally available terms and conditions" (court case no. 98-C0566C); (2) Its interconnection agreement with MCI WorldCom Corp. (98-C11C and 98-C153C); and (3) Enforcement of reciprocal compensation provisions in agreements with Teleport Communications Group, Inc., and Time Warner Communications (98-C0366C). The interim order is "not final or appealable," explained Mary Stevens, an attorney in the PSC's Telecommunications Division. She said Judge Crabb had asked for a supplemental briefing on several issues, including whether there's anything for the court to address in light of her finding of immunity. "Our position is that we're an indispensable party, and the cases should be heard in state court," Ms. Stevens said. She noted that state commissions previously raised the immunity argument when federal district courts were asked to review orders relating to interconnection agreements. The courts rejected the argument in "20 to 25 cases," she said. The 11th Amendment states that "the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the [states] by citizens of another state." Ms. Stevens said that the U.S. Supreme Court "long ago expanded the 11th Amendment" to include lawsuits filed in federal courts against a state by one of its own citizens. Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago) is reviewing a lower court decision upholding an Illinois Commerce Commission order. The commission had ruled that reciprocal compensation provisions of interconnection agreements apply to calls to Internet service providers. According to Ms. Stevens, among the issues on which parties briefed the circuit court were (1) whether states waive 11th Amendment immunity claims by participating in interconnection agreement arbitrations and (2) whether individual commissioners could be sued for their actions in these cases. Ameritech-Wisconsin has said it would ask Judge Crabb to wait for a Seventh Circuit decision on the Illinois cases (nos. 98-2127, 98-2256, and 98-2566) before issuing a final decision on the Wisconsin cases, Ms. Stevens said. But she noted that "there's no indication of when the Seventh Circuit will be deciding" those cases and that the Wisconsin PSC had raised arguments that the Illinois commission didn't make. Whether the appeals court's decision "would be precedential" for the Wisconsin cases "is debatable," Ms. Stevens said. Ameritech Corp. believes the federal courts have jurisdiction over these cases, a company spokesman said. Congress stated in section 251(e)(6) of the Act that state commission determinations regarding interconnection agreements or statements of generally available terms are to be reviewed by the federal district courts. Ms. Stevens said that even if the 11th Amendment doesn't give states immunity, the Act doesn't direct the federal courts to review state commission decisions enforcing provisions of interconnection agreements.