In the world of communications, shopping does not slow after New Years -- at least with respect to the judicial forum-shopping in which parties challenging FCC orders engage. As I alluded yesterday, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission filed suit in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge the FCC's November decision that declared Vonage's Internet voice service "interstate", thereby preempting state commissions from imposing inconsistent regulations. The usual drill, of course, is to appeal FCC decisions to the District of Columbia Circuit, which has special expertise in reviewing rulings from the alphabet soup of agencies that inhabit DC. Presumably, Minnesota filed in the 8th Circuit based on the suspicion that court would be more supportive of state authority than a court inside the Beltway. Minnesota's action follows on the heels of a similar appeal by the California Utilities Commission to its own regional court (the 9th Circuit). Apparently, the "NIMBY" principle does not apply when it comes to state strategies for imposing regulation on new services like Internet voice.