In latest step in long legal wrangling, U.S. Appeals Court, D.C.,...

providers. However, court said, since FCC hadn’t yet determined how it would calculate damages, ILECs still had right to present their “equity concerns” to FCC during that phase of proceedings. Case stems back to late 1980s when ILECs decided to impose EUCL charges on “smart” payphones operated by independent payphone providers (IPPs). When IPPs complained that charges were improper because IPPs weren’t “end users,” FCC sided with ILECs. IPPs won remand from Appeals Court that said FCC didn’t properly justify imposing EUCL charges on IPPs while exempting their own ILEC-provided payphones from such charges. On remand, FCC issued “liability order,” concluding EUCL was “unreasonable charge” under Communications Act. ILECs led by Verizon returned to court to appeal that FCC ruling, leading to court’s decision Fri. upholding Commission. Much of oral argument in case (CD Sept 7 p7) focused on whether FCC’s liability order was final since agency hadn’t determined damages yet -- and thus whether court should even hear appeal. In order written by former Chief Judge Harry Edwards, court determined that order was final and upheld FCC’s finding that ILECs violated unreasonable charge provisions of Act “even though the Commission initially construed the… rules to allow the charges.” Edwards said “we do not believe that the Commission should be prevented from stating the law correctly merely because it may have misconstrued the applicable rules in the past.” However, court said “we express no opinion as to whether damages or some other monetary remedy are appropriate in this case, or whether such a remedy, if appropriate, may be imposed retroactively.” Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg and Judge Laurence Silberman also were on panel. Case is Verizon Telephone Companies v. FCC (00-1207).