Exceptions to the Initial Decision were filed by Core and AT&T on June 13, 2011, and Replies to Exceptions were filed by Core and AT&T on June 23, 2011. In addition, on July 7, 2011, Core filed a Motion for Leave to File Update to Reply to the Exceptions of AT&T to which AT&T filed an Answer in opposition Core’s on July 15, 2011. On July 15, 2011, we granted the Motion and indicated that we also would consider responsive argument to updated Replies to Exceptions. AT&T’s Core’s On June 21, 2011, two days before the deadline for filing Reply Exceptions, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in the Pac-West proceeding. AT&T 651 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2011) Communications of California v. Pac-West Telecomm, (PacWest). The Ninth Circuit reversed the and held Pac-West District Court Decision, that the applied to all LEC-originated ISP-bound traffic, ISP Remand Order FCC’s including CLEC-to-CLEC traffic. The Ninth Circuit preempted the California Public Utility decision that relied upon state-filed tariffs to set rates for Commission’s dialed ISP-bound traffic, and instead deferred to the compensation regime FCC’s established by the ISP Remand Order. Our sustained Formal Complaint against December 2012 Order Core’s AT&T, in part. More specifically, we determined that the FCC had preempted state not regulation of local ISP-bound CLEC-to-CLEC traffic in a manner that is consistent with the intercarrier compensation regime. at 24. We further December 2012 Order FCC’s concluded that, in light of the Ninth decision in the FCC had Pac-West, Circuit’s preempted the States from establishing for ISP-bound local CLEC-CLEC traffic rates that are inconsistent with the at 49, 79-80. Accordingly, ISP Remand Order. Id. FCC’s we held that Core was entitled to compensation from AT&T at the capped rate of FCC’s $0.0007 per minute of use (MOU) for traffic terminated by Core on or after May 19, 2005. at 81-82. Id.
Exceptions to the Initial Decision were filed by Core and AT&T on June 13, 2011, and Replies to Exceptions were filed by Core and AT&T on June 23, 2011. In addition, on July 7, 2011, Core filed a Motion for Leave to File Update to Core’s Reply to the Exceptions of AT&T to which AT&T filed an Answer in opposition on July 15, 2011. On July 15, 2011, we granted the Motion and indicated that we also would consider AT&T’s responsive argument to Core’s updated Replies to Exceptions. On June 21, 2011, two days before the deadline for filing Reply Exceptions, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in the Pac-West proceeding. AT&T Communications of California v. Pac-West Telecomm, 651 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2011) (PacWest). The Ninth Circuit reversed the Pac-West District Court Decision, and held that the FCC’s ISP Remand Order applied to all LEC-originated ISP-bound traffic, including CLEC-to-CLEC traffic. The Ninth Circuit preempted the California Public Utility Commission’s decision that relied upon state-filed tariffs to set rates for ISP-bound traffic, and instead deferred to the FCC’s compensation regime established by the ISP Remand Order. Our December 2012 Order sustained Core’s Formal Complaint against AT&T, in part. More specifically, we determined that the FCC had not preempted state regulation of local ISP-bound CLEC-to-CLEC traffic in a manner that is consistent with the FCC’s intercarrier compensation regime. December 2012 Order at 24. We further concluded that, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pac-West, the FCC had preempted the States from establishing rates for ISP-bound local CLEC-CLEC traffic that are inconsistent with the FCC’s ISP Remand Order. Id. at 49, 79-80. Accordingly, we held that Core was entitled to compensation from AT&T at the FCC’s capped rate of $0.0007 per minute of use (MOU) for traffic terminated by Core on or after May 19, 2005. Id. at 81-82. dialed
1242876.docx