The proposed interconnection agreement between Michigan Bell and...
The proposed interconnection agreement between Michigan Bell and Sprint Spectrum was approved Tuesday by the Michigan Public Service Commission (http://1.usa.gov/1m7BVUP). The agreement filed with the PSC on April 1 (CD April 3 p18) called for AT&T to allow IP-to-IP interconnection…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
between the companies. But while making the agreement, AT&T Michigan said in the filing it “continues to object to the contract provisions proposed by Sprint (http://bit.ly/PjAmEY). .... The provisions are contrary to the requirements of Section 251 [of the Telecommunications Act] and therefore must be rejected.” Tuesday’s ruling ends a long back and forth, in which the PSC ruled Dec. 6 (http://bit.ly/1k7xkBc) (CD Dec 10 p12) that AT&T has to reach an IP interconnection agreement with Sprint. Under a proposed agreement filed Feb. 25 (CD Feb 27 p16), the sides agreed all traffic Sprint exchanges with AT&T would be delivered in TDM format. They left the IP dispute in the air, saying if they can’t resolve the issue, they may amend the agreement in July to include IP interconnection. The PSC rejected the Feb. 25 agreement on March 18 (http://tinyurl.com/nmuglcw) (CD March 19 p19), saying the sides have to file any contingency agreement they might have with the commission. AT&T’s April 1 filing said it was only submitting the agreement because the PSC was requiring one be filed.