traffic is in the public interest, such CTL of just compensation from “toll bypass” denies Core, as well as from other CLECs that may wish to to the prevailing ICA. Id. “opt-in” at 7-8; CTL 2014 R.B. at 6-7. (c) Disposition We shall adopt position and corresponding proposed language on CTL’s this issue and direct that it be incorporated into the ICA consistent with the following discussion. In our we noted that although Core now generates December 2013 Order, outbound traffic through its provision of services to wholesale VoIP Providers, resulting in asymmetrical two-way traffic, the vast majority of traffic currently exchanged between Core and CTL is still one-way VNXX-enabled, ISP-bound traffic. December 2013 Order at 71, 104-105. Accordingly, we clarify that, as CTL suggests, our December 2013 focused on the proper compensation that is applicable to the exchange of Order ISP-bound traffic and our application of a bill and keep compensation regime was limited only to VNXX-enabled traffic that is ISP-bound, and not to VNXX-enabled traffic in general. This is highlighted by the fact that in our combined disposition of Issue Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 8a in our we stated that we apply and December 2013 Order, “shall ‘bill to the VNXX-enabled ISP-bound traffic at issue.” at 76 (emphasis added). Id. keep’ As CTL points out, Core has not provided any justification for why a bill and keep compensation regime should apply to all types of VNXX-enabled traffic. We agree. We are not convinced by argument that establishing a different Core’s compensation for VNXX-enabled voice traffic would create an unmanageable distinction. We further find that the provisions outlined in Section F of the ICA and the rates Parties’ outlined in Table 1 of the ICA govern compensation for such traffic.
traffic is in the public interest, such “toll bypass” denies CTL of just compensation from Core, as well as from other CLECs that may wish to “opt-in” to the prevailing ICA. Id. at 7-8; CTL 2014 R.B. at 6-7. (c) Disposition We shall adopt CTL’s position and corresponding proposed language on this issue and direct that it be incorporated into the ICA consistent with the following discussion. In our December 2013 Order, we noted that although Core now generates outbound traffic through its provision of services to wholesale VoIP Providers, resulting in asymmetrical two-way traffic, the vast majority of traffic currently exchanged between Core and CTL is still one-way VNXX-enabled, ISP-bound traffic. December 2013 Order at 71, 104-105. Accordingly, we clarify that, as CTL suggests, our December 2013 Order focused on the proper compensation that is applicable to the exchange of ISP-bound traffic and our application of a bill and keep compensation regime was limited only to VNXX-enabled traffic that is ISP-bound, and not to VNXX-enabled traffic in general. This is highlighted by the fact that in our combined disposition of Issue Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 8a in our December 2013 Order, we stated that we “shall apply ‘bill and keep’ to the VNXX-enabled ISP-bound traffic at issue.” Id. at 76 (emphasis added). As CTL points out, Core has not provided any justification for why a bill and keep compensation regime should apply to all types of VNXX-enabled traffic. We agree. We are not convinced by Core’s argument that establishing a different compensation for VNXX-enabled voice traffic would create an unmanageable distinction. We further find that the provisions outlined in Section F of the Parties’ ICA and the rates outlined in Table 1 of the ICA govern compensation for such traffic.