T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al v. Armstrong et al
| T-Mobile USA, Inc., Powertel/Memphis, Inc., T-Mobile Central LLC, Sprint Spectrum, L.P., Sprintcom, Inc., Cellco Partnership, GTE Wireless of the Midwest Incorporated and Kentucky RSA No. 1 Partnership |
| David Armstrong, James W. Gardner, John W. Clay, Ballard Rural Telephone Cooperative Corporation, Inc., Brandenburg Telephone Company, Duo County Telephone Cooperative Corporation, Inc., Foothills Rural Telephone Cooperative Corporation, Inc., Gearheart Communications, Inc., Logan Telephone Cooperative, Inc., Mountain Rural Telephone Cooperative Corporation, Inc., North Central Telephone Cooperative Corporation, Inc., Peoples Rural Telephone Cooperative Corporation, Inc., South Central Rural Telephone Company, Inc., Thacker-Grigsby Telephone Company, Inc. and West Kentucky Rural Telephone Cooperative Corporation, Inc. |
| 3:2008cv00036 |
| July 8, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Other Statutory Actions Office |
| Franklin |
| Danny C. Reeves |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
45
JUDGMENT: 1. Judgment is entered in accordance with the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on this date. More specifically, A. The Court finds and DECLARES that the Kentucky Public Service Commissions resolution of Issues 1 and 9 is inconsistent w ith 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5) and the requirement of FCC Rules and Decisions that a landline carrier pay reciprocal compensation to a wireless carrier for landline-originated traffic that terminates to a wireless carrier in the same Major Trading Ar ea, whether or not the call is also transported by an intermediary carrier. 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(2) (2008).B. The Court finds and DECLARES that the Kentucky Public Service Commissions resolution of Issue 2 is not inconsistent with 47 U.S.C. 67; 251(a)(1) or the requirement of FCC Rules and Decisions that a landline carrier provide the type of interconnection reasonably requested by a wireless carrier to the extent that it determined thatthe use of one trunk for the traffic of all twelve RLECs was not economically reasonable. However, this issue is REMANDED to the Commission to provide factual support for its determination and/or choice of DS1 (or some other level of traffic) as the threshold level requiring a dedicated trunk line.C . The Court finds and DECLARES that the Kentucky Public Service Commissions resolution of Issues 5, 7 and 8 is inconsistent with 47 U.S.C. § 251(a)(1) and the requirement of FCC Rules and Decisions that the calling-partys network is required to pay the costs of transporting its traffic to the network of the terminating carrier. 47 C.F.R. § 51.703(b)(2008).D. As identified in arbitration proceedings 2006-00215, 2006-00217, 2006- 00218, 2006-00220, 2006-00252, 2006-00255, 2006-00288, 200 6-00292, 2006-00294, 2006- 00296, 2006-00298, and 2006-00300, the determinations of Issues 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9 by theKentucky Public Service Commission are hereby DECLARED unlawful and preempted by federal law as described above and in the Memorandum Op inion and Order entered this date. E. The Kentucky Public Service Commission is ENJOINED from attempting to enforce the preempted portions of the December 22, March 19, and June 18 Orders. 2. This is a FINAL and APPEALABLE Judgment and there is no just cause for delay. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 5/20/2009.(CBD)cc: COR
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
