FCC Order on Intercarrier Compensation Due in Six Months
The FCC will come out with a comprehensive intercarrier compensation revamp in six months, FCC lawyer Joseph Palmore said during oral arguments on Core Communications’ appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin authorized the statement, Palmore said. Core seeks a writ of mandamus telling the FCC to provide within 60 days a statutory basis for a nine-year-old interim compensation scheme for ISP-bound traffic.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The appeals court might impose a six-month deadline. Judges David Tatel and Merrick Garland seemed skeptical that the FCC would hit that mark otherwise. A deadline would prevent Martin from asking for six months more in November, Tatel said. In August 2004 and March 2005, the FCC told the court it was on the verge of dealing with the matter, Garland said. “Maybe we need to set a deadline,” he said.
The court shouldn’t impose a six-month deadline, Palmore said. If the commissioners can’t agree within six months, Martin will separate out the ISP compensation part for which Core seeks a ruling and vote on it at the commission’s next regularly scheduled agenda meeting after that, he said. The court should impose a 60-day deadline on the agency, Core lawyer Michael Hazzard said. Action within six months would be “a lot better” than what Core has gotten so far, Garland said.
The FCC hasn’t issued an order to satisfy a 2002 District of Columbia Circuit remand in WorldCom v. FCC. The court sent back an FCC order on ISP-bound reciprocal compensation without throwing it out. Only the FCC’s promise to act quickly kept the court from vacating the order in WorldCom, Garland said. “Why does it take seven years to answer this very simple question?” Tatel asked.
Core’s question involves a “small” part of overhauling intercarrier compensation reform, Palmore said. Dealing with the topic separately would be a “patchwork” approach that could lead to “unanticipated consequences,” he said.
Garland and Judge Thomas Griffith asked about an FCC suggestion to defer consideration until the court resolves a separate Core appeal. In that case, Core asked the court to reverse an FCC order denying a petition by the company for forbearance from enforcement of the ISP intercarrier compensation rules at issue. But overturning the forbearance order only would mean future relief, Hazzard said. A writ of mandamus would force the FCC to make amends for Core’s nine years of suffering, he said.