In re FCC 11-161

753 F.3d 1015 (2014)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re FCC 11-161

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
753 F.3d 1015 (2014)



The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (defendant) issued an order overhauling its intercarrier-compensation regime. Under 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5), local exchange carriers (LECs) are required to “establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for the transport and termination of telecommunications.” The old regime under this section required LECs to pay each other for exchanging local call traffic. These payments were negotiated by the carriers or set by a state telecommunications regulatory commission (state commission). For long-distance calls under the old regime, long-distance carriers needed LECs’ networks to both originate and terminate long-distance calls. Under the old regime, the calling party paid all the costs of the call. The person making the call paid his long-distance carrier, and the long-distance carrier paid the LECs needed to originate and terminate the call. This system was based on the idea that the calling party reaped the benefit from a call. Under the new intercarrier-compensation regime adopted in the order, the FCC ruled that all traffic must be exchanged under a “bill-and-keep” system. Under this system, carriers would not bill each other for exchanging call traffic but would share the costs of each call. The FCC reasoned that carriers would recover necessary costs from their own subscribers. The FCC found that the bill-and-keep system was just and reasonable, the statutory standard for telecommunications rates. Further, the FCC’s order applied this new regime to all traffic between LECs and long-distance carriers, even local calls and other intrastate traffic. In asserting authority over all traffic, the FCC preempted state-commission authority over intrastate calls. State commissions had historically asserted authority over intercarrier compensation for intrastate calls. Several petitioners, including telecommunications carriers and state commissions (plaintiffs) appealed the order in federal court. Among other things, the petitioners argued that the FCC’s new regime could not apply to traffic between a LEC and a long-distance carrier because the payment between those carriers only went one way—from the long-distance carrier to the LEC—and thus was not reciprocal.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Briscoe, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 744,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership