Commission should clarify that CTL must establish rates for entrance facilities according to the rates Core outlines in its rebuttal testimony. Core professes that it established such rates by correcting the flaws Core alleges are present in own study. at 7-8, Id. CTL’s n.10. In its Answer, CTL avers that Petition fails to meet the Duick Core’s standard for reconsideration or clarification because it simply reiterates the position and proposals that Core set forth in the record developed in this proceeding. CTL reasons that because the Commission did not adopt any of these proposals in our December 2013 it should not do so now, arguing that reconsideration on the matter is not Order, necessary for the Parties to implement a conforming agreement. However, CTL contends that if the Commission does determine that clarification regarding the appropriate pricing of entrance facilities is necessary, then the cost study CTL submitted as an alternative to its primary position in this proceeding should be used as the basis for setting such rates in the conforming ICA. Answer at 1-4. CTL refutes claim that the cost study CTL submitted is not TELRIC Core’s based. CTL points out that Core did not provide a cost study of its own and that, in submitting the rebuttal testimony of its witness in correcting alleged flaws in cost CTL’s study, Core failed to outline any specific TELRIC pricing requirement that CTL did not follow in setting its rates. Likewise, CTL argues that Petition lacks any citation to Core’s specific testimony by Core to support a clarification by the Commission that Core’s adjustments to cost study would produce TELRIC-compliant rates for entrance CTL’s facilities. CTL professes that its cost study was produced by establishing entrance facility rates at each of its four tandems, setting forth a least CTL asserts that, if Core chooses to directly cost, most efficient network.” interconnect with CTL at other locations besides tandems, CTL has proposed CTL’s individual case basis (ICB) language to address such requests and to provide cost-based pricing at TELRIC rates. at 4-6, nn.18, 23. Id.
Commission should clarify that CTL must establish rates for entrance facilities according to the rates Core outlines in its rebuttal testimony. Core professes that it established such rates by correcting the flaws Core alleges are present in CTL’s own study. Id. at 7-8, n.10. In its Answer, CTL avers that Core’s Petition fails to meet the Duick standard for reconsideration or clarification because it simply reiterates the position and proposals that Core set forth in the record developed in this proceeding. CTL reasons that because the Commission did not adopt any of these proposals in our December 2013 Order, it should not do so now, arguing that reconsideration on the matter is not necessary for the Parties to implement a conforming agreement. However, CTL contends that if the Commission does determine that clarification regarding the appropriate pricing of entrance facilities is necessary, then the cost study CTL submitted as an alternative to its primary position in this proceeding should be used as the basis for setting such rates in the conforming ICA. Answer at 1-4. CTL refutes Core’s claim that the cost study CTL submitted is not TELRIC based. CTL points out that Core did not provide a cost study of its own and that, in submitting the rebuttal testimony of its witness in correcting alleged flaws in CTL’s cost study, Core failed to outline any specific TELRIC pricing requirement that CTL did not follow in setting its rates. Likewise, CTL argues that Core’s Petition lacks any citation to specific testimony by Core to support a clarification by the Commission that Core’s adjustments to CTL’s cost study would produce TELRIC-compliant rates for entrance facilities. CTL professes that its cost study was produced by establishing entrance facility rates at each of its four tandems, setting forth a least cost, most efficient network.” CTL asserts that, if Core chooses to directly interconnect with CTL at other locations besides CTL’s tandems, CTL has proposed individual case basis (ICB) language to address such requests and to provide cost-based pricing at TELRIC rates. Id. at 4-6, nn.18, 23.
1296764.docx