Find Court Cases > Talk America Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.

Talk America Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.

Case Date: 03/30/2011
Docket No: none

Facts of the Case 

Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress sought to open up the local telephone markets to competition by requiring incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to share their equipment and services with competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs). Under early interpretations of the law, incumbent-constructed entrance facilities had to provide at-cost access to the competitors. In AT&T Inc. unit Michigan Bell Telephone Co.'s interpretation, the FCC's Triennial Review Remand Order in 2005 created a means to charge for the use of the facilities, and the company announced plans to do so.

Competitor carriers complained to the Michigan Public Service Commission, and it ruled that the entrance facilities should still be provided at cost. Michigan Bell sued in federal court and won. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Read the Briefs for this Case
  • Brief Amicus Curiae of the California Public Utilities Commission In Support of Petitioners
    • Question 

    Does federal law require local telephone companies, already established, to allow new competitors in their markets to link to the existing networks through connecting wires at low, government-regulated rates?

    Argument Talk America Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. - Oral ArgumentFull Transcript Text  Download MP3Talk America Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. - Opinion AnnouncementFull Transcript Text  Download MP3 Conclusion  Decision: 8 votes for Talk America Inc., 0 vote(s) against Legal provision: 47 U. S. C. §251(c)(3)

    Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the lower court in a decision by Justice Clarence Thomas. "The FCC has advanced a reasonable interpretation of its regulations — i.e., that to satisfy its duty under §251(c)(2), an incumbent LEC must make its existing entrance facilities available to competitors at cost-based rates if the facilities are to be used for interconnection — and this Court defers to the FCC’s views," Thomas wrote. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a concurring opinion, noting: "I would reach the same result even without benefit of the rule that we will defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations." Meanwhile, Justice Elena Kagan took no part in consideration of the case.