Cluster 781586 (2003)

According to Global, interpreting language used in many interconnection agreements is prohibited under our decision in Pacific Bell v. Pac West Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1128-29 (9th Cir.2003).

Id. at 1120-21.

Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003)). *837 III North County first contends that the state Commissions lacked authority to arbitrate the 2011 ICAs.

Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1127 (9th Cir.2003); Iowa Utils.

Bell, 325 F.3d at 1119-20.

Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that under the Hobbs Act, a “district court must dismiss a complaint if it directly attacks an FCC order or if it raises only issues that were conclusively decided by the FCC order” (emphasis added)); see also Hamilton, 224 F.3d at 1055 (stating that a paragraph in an FCC order is not a “final order” subject to the Hobbs Act if it is tentative” or “interlocutory”). directly addresses the issue presented here, which…

“A state commission’s decision is arbitrary and capricious if the decision ‘was not supported by substantial evidence’ or the commission made a ‘clear error of judgment.’ ” Id. at 1150 (quoting Pacific Bell v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1131 (9th Cir.2003)).

By imposing such duties upon incumbent local exchange carriers, the Act “neutralizes] the competitive advantage inherent in incumbent carriers’ ownership of the physical networks required to supply telecommunications services.” Pacific Bell v. Pac West Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 2003).

Telecomm., Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1126 (9th Cir.2003).

Pacific Bell v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir.2003). [¶ 26] For purposes of regulation, a call is treated as “local” if it originates and terminates in the same local calling area; a call is treated as “long distance” if it terminates in a local calling area different than the one in which it originates.

Pacific Bell v. Pac West Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir.2003). [¶ 24] In its Local Competition Order, the FCC had to determine which telecommunications are subject to “reciprocal compensation” for “transport and termination” under section 251(b)(5).

Bell v. Pac-West Telecomm., Inc., 325 F.3d at 1127 (noting the 1996 Act is intended to “replace the comprehensive state and federal regulatory scheme with a more market driven system that is self-regulated through negotiated interconnection agreements”); Equal Access NPRM, at ¶ 2 (explaining that FCC decision under 47 U.S.C. § 332 are intended “to promote competition by refocusing competitors’ efforts away from strategies in the regulatory arena”).

Pacific Bell v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1125-26, 1127 (9th Cir.2003).

Telecomm., Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1122-23 (9th Cir.2003).

See Pacific Bell v. PacWest Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1126-27 (9th Cir.2003) (discussing the state public utilities commissions’ powers under § 252 “to arbitrage], approv[e], and enforc[e] interconnection agreements”).

See Pacific Bell v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114 , 1123 n. 8 (9th Cir.2003).

See Pacific Bell v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114 , 1123 n.8 (9th Cir. 2003).

See 325 F.3d 1114 , 1126 (9th Cir.2003) (“It is clear from the structure of the Act, however, that the authority granted to state regulatory commissions is confined to the role described in § 252 — that of arbitrating, approving, and enforcing interconnection agreements." (emphasis added)). 14 .

Comm'n of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635, 643-44 , 122 S.Ct. 1753 , 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002) (recognizing a district court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to address an action challenging a state administrative agency's interpretation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996); see also Pacific Bell v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1125 (9th Cir.2003) ("The district court must dismiss a complaint if it directly attacks an FCC order or if it raises only issues that were con…

Comm’n of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635, 643-44 , 122 S.Ct. 1753 , 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002) (recognizing a district court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to address an action challenging a state administrative agency’s interpretation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996); see also Pacific Bell v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1125 (9th Cir.2003) (“The district court must dismiss a complaint if it directly attacks an FCC order or if it raises only issues that were con…

See Pacific Bell v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114 , 1118 (9th Cir. 2002) (Congress sought to foster competition “by neutralizing the competitive advantage inherent in [ILECs] ownership of the physical networks required to supply telecommunications services”).

See id. at 1120, 1130 . 6 .

See Pacific Bell v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114, 1122-1123 (9th Cir.2003).

See Pacific Bell v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. , 325 F.3d 1114 , 1122-1123 (9th Cir. 2002).

See Pacific Bell v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., 325 F.3d 1114 , 1122-1123 (9th Cir. 2002).