was released after the entry of our orders in each of the Circuit Core v. AT&T Decision above arbitration proceedings. Moreover, as Verizon notes, we also rejected attempt to back-bill Core’s Verizon for switched access services on several other grounds, none of which Core has challenged in the Petition before us today. Specifically, in our we December 2016 Order, made the following other findings in rejecting switched access claims: Core’s Core wrongly billed Verizon for traffic that was originated by IXCs. at 60-61. December 2016 Order Core improperly billed Verizon for various switched access elements. at 64-70. December 2016 Order Core failed to present the necessary evidence regarding the amount of ISP-bound traffic it terminated vis-à-vis the amount of traffic it terminated, thereby rendering all traffic for which it sought to back-bill Verizon to be local ISP-bound traffic. December at 57. 2016 Order In light of the above discussion, request for reconsideration of this issue is denied. Core’s 3. Applicability of the Definitions for ICAs’ “Local Traffic,” “Reciprocal and to ISP-bound Compensation,” “Reciprocal Compensation Traffic” Traffic (Core Petition at 10-12) a. Positions of the Parties Core next seeks clarification regarding our finding that the Verizon PA definitions for and and the Verizon ICA’s “Local Traffic” “Reciprocal Compensation,”
Circuit Core v. AT&T Decision was released after the entry of our orders in each of the above arbitration proceedings. Moreover, as Verizon notes, we also rejected Core’s attempt to back-bill Verizon for switched access services on several other grounds, none of which Core has challenged in the Petition before us today. Specifically, in our December 2016 Order, we made the following other findings in rejecting Core’s switched access claims: Core wrongly billed Verizon for traffic that was originated by IXCs. December 2016 Order at 60-61. Core improperly billed Verizon for various switched access elements. December 2016 Order at 64-70. Core failed to present the necessary evidence regarding the amount of ISP-bound traffic it terminated vis-à-vis the amount of traffic it terminated, thereby rendering all traffic for which it sought to back-bill Verizon to be local ISP-bound traffic. December 2016 Order at 57. In light of the above discussion, Core’s request for reconsideration of this issue is denied. 3. Applicability of the ICAs’ Definitions for “Local Traffic,” “Reciprocal Compensation,” and “Reciprocal Compensation Traffic” to ISP-bound Traffic (Core Petition at 10-12) a. Positions of the Parties Core next seeks clarification regarding our finding that the Verizon PA ICA’s definitions for “Local Traffic” and “Reciprocal Compensation,” and the Verizon