TMT Law Watch
Wireless Data Roaming Rules Upheld by D.C. Circuit
Mobile wireless data providers must offer roaming agreements to competing carriers on “commercially reasonable” terms following the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision to uphold rules first adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2011. The FCC’s data roaming requirements were designed to supplement existing roaming obligations on mobile carriers that only applied to voice services by facilitating access to data services when customers travel outside of their providers’ networks. As we reported previously, the data roaming rules were adopted by a closely-divided FCC and were subsequently challenged by Cellco Partnership, more commonly known as Verizon Wireless.
Verizon Wireless challenged the data roaming obligations on three grounds, arguing that: (1) the FCC lacked statutory authority to impose “common carrier” type rules on mobile data providers; (2) new rules were unnecessary because mobile data providers were already entering into voluntary roaming agreements with competing carriers; and (3) roaming obligations would reduce incentives to expand wireless infrastructure if providers must share their networks with competitors. Verizon Wireless alleged that the roaming requirements would unfairly benefit smaller carriers with limited networks at the expense of larger providers. In response, the FCC stated that the new rules did not impose common carrier type regulations on mobile data providers and the requirements were necessary in order to prevent larger carriers from excluding smaller providers from their networks.
The D.C. Circuit began by noting that the FCC may not impose common carrier type obligations on providers of “information services,” including mobile data providers. However, the court found that the data roaming rules allow providers to negotiate the terms of their roaming arrangements on an individualized basis and do not require providers to serve other carriers indiscriminately on standardized terms. While the court recognized that the data roaming requirements “plainly bear some marks of common carriage,” the court deferred to the FCC’s determination that the new rules did not amount to common carriage regulation because providers can negotiate flexible terms and conditions. The court further concluded that the data roaming rules did not constitute an unconstitutional taking of Verizon Wireless’s data network or represent arbitrary and capricious rulemaking. Although supporters of the roaming rules also suggested that the court’s decision supports the FCC’s net neutrality rules currently subject to a separate appeal, the court in the data roaming case found that the FCC has explicit jurisdiction over wireless carriers under its broad authority over radio communications under Title III of the Communications Act.
K&L Gates LLP
1601 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006
p. 202.778.9000 f. 202.778.9100 This blog/Web site is made available by the contributing lawyers or law firm publisher solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general legal principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. By using this blog/Web site, you understand that there is no attorney client relationship intended or formed between you and the blog/Web site publisher or any contributing lawyer. The blog/Web site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.
K&L Gates practices out of 48 fully integrated offices located in the United States, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East and South America and represents leading global corporations, growth and middle-market companies, capital markets participants and entrepreneurs in every major industry group as well as public sector entities, educational institutions, philanthropic organizations and individuals. For more information about K&L Gates or its locations, practices and registrations, visit www.klgates.com.
Portions of this Web site may contain Attorney Advertising under the rules of some states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.