Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 151 (collectively, the Act). AT&T also requested that the et seq. ALJ suspend the instant proceeding while the Motion to Dismiss was pending. By letter dated December 9, 2009, Core responded, stating that it objected to any suspension of further testimony while the Motion to Dismiss was pending as well as to the Motion itself. On December 28, 2009, Core filed its Answer to Motion to AT&T’s Dismiss. Core stated that the FCC has never preempted the authority to Commission’s address issues relating to intercarrier compensation between two competitive local exchange companies (CLECs). Core contended that the applied only ISP Remand Order to intercarrier compensation between an incumbent local exchange company (ILEC) and a CLEC. In this case, the exchange of traffic is between two CLECs; thus, Core is of the opinion that the is not applicable. Core also contended that, even if ISP Remand Order the applied, the Commission still would have jurisdiction because the ISP Remand Order Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TA-96) contemplated shared state and federal authority over all aspects of competition. Core also argued that AT&T Communications 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61740 (N.D. Cal Aug. 12, 2008) v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., (Pac-West was directly on point with the issues in this District Court Decision) proceeding and makes clear that state commissions have not been preempted from applying intrastate tariff rates to ISP-bound traffic exchanged between two CLECs. By Order dated February 26, 2010 (Order the ALJ granted the No. 6), Motion to Dismiss regarding the traffic prior to September 2009 and denied the Motion to Dismiss regarding traffic after September 2009. On March 5, 2010, both Core and AT&T filed separate Petitions for Interlocutory Review and Answer to Material Questions with respect to On Order No. 6.
Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (collectively, the Act). AT&T also requested that the ALJ suspend the instant proceeding while the Motion to Dismiss was pending. By letter dated December 9, 2009, Core responded, stating that it objected to any suspension of further testimony while the Motion to Dismiss was pending as well as to the Motion itself. On December 28, 2009, Core filed its Answer to AT&T’s Motion to Dismiss. Core stated that the FCC has never preempted the Commission’s authority to address issues relating to intercarrier compensation between two competitive local exchange companies (CLECs). Core contended that the ISP Remand Order applied only to intercarrier compensation between an incumbent local exchange company (ILEC) and a CLEC. In this case, the exchange of traffic is between two CLECs; thus, Core is of the opinion that the ISP Remand Order is not applicable. Core also contended that, even if the ISP Remand Order applied, the Commission still would have jurisdiction because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TA-96) contemplated shared state and federal authority over all aspects of competition. Core also argued that AT&T Communications v. Pac-West Telecomm, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61740 (N.D. Cal Aug. 12, 2008) (Pac-West District Court Decision) was directly on point with the issues in this proceeding and makes clear that state commissions have not been preempted from applying intrastate tariff rates to ISP-bound traffic exchanged between two CLECs. By Order dated February 26, 2010 (Order No. 6), the ALJ granted the Motion to Dismiss regarding the traffic prior to September 2009 and denied the Motion to Dismiss regarding traffic after September 2009. On March 5, 2010, both Core and AT&T filed separate Petitions for Interlocutory Review and Answer to Material Questions with respect to Order No. 6. On
1242876.docx