Level 3 Files FCC Complaint Against AT&T Over Tandem-Switched Transport Access Tariffs
Level 3 filed an FCC complaint against AT&T alleging it's trying "to delay and impede" the FCC's ongoing intercarrier compensation shift to bill-and-keep arrangements in which carriers don't charge each other terminating fees. "In Section 51.907(g)(2) of its rules, the…
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.
Commission has unambiguously required that AT&T and other 'Price Cap Carriers' transition to bill-and-keep for tandem-switched transport access services for calls that traverse a tandem switch that is owned by the 'terminating carrier' or its 'affiliates,'" said a 469-page public version of the complaint posted Wednesday in docket 17-227. "AT&T has rewritten the regulation to apply only if a call traverses a tandem switch owned by a Price Cap Carrier and the Price Cap Carrier is also the 'terminating carrier.' As for the term 'affiliates' in the rule, AT&T contends that it too only 'comes into play' when the Price Cap Carrier that owns the end office has an affiliate that owns the tandem." Level 3 said AT&T used the "self-serving reformulation" to file "tariff revisions that (a) only comply with the rule’s rate cap for a shrinking percentage of calls that terminate with an AT&T Price Cap Carrier, and (b) charge rates as much as two-and-a-half times the maximum rate permitted under the Commission’s rules for the growing percentage of calls that terminate with an AT&T VoIP or wireless carrier, thereby perpetuating the very ICC inefficiencies that the regulation is intended to end." An AT&T spokesman referred us to a Wireline Bureau July public notice that denied petitions, including Level 3's, to reject or suspend and investigate AT&T tariffs, along with the telco's opposition. "None of the parties filing petitions against the tariff transmittals at issue have presented compelling arguments that the transmittals are so patently unlawful as to require rejection," said the PN. "None of the parties have presented issues regarding the tariff transmittals that raise significant questions of lawfulness which require their investigation." An Enforcement Bureau notice Wednesday set a pleading schedule, with an AT&T answer due Oct. 9, a Level 3 reply due Oct. 24, and an AT&T further reply due Nov. 8. The bureau this week granted a conditional waiver of some procedural rules for the anticipated proceeding (see 1709120060). Also Wednesday, a Wireline Bureau PN Wednesday denied a Windstream petition to reject or suspend and investigate AT&T business data service tariffs, noting Windstream was free to pursue a complaint.