I. SUMMARY
This decision addresses the application for rehearing of Decision
(D.) 08-12-005 (or "Decision"), filed by Sprint Spectrum L.P., Wireless Co., L.P. and Cox Communications PCS, L.P. (collectively "Sprint"). In D.08-12-005 (or "Decision"), the Commission found that Sprint violated the terms of its interconnection agreement ("ICA") with Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California ("AT&T") by refusing to pay the transiting service rates mandated by the terms of the ICA.1 The Decision determined that the transiting service2 rates that AT&T charged Sprint under its ICA were not discriminatory even though they were significantly higher than the rates that other carriers paid. (D.08-12-005, p. 19 [Conclusion of Law 3].) The Commission ordered Sprint to pay AT&T all amounts AT&T had billed for transiting service that Sprint had withheld and ordered Sprint to make late payment charges. (D.08-12-005, pp. 19-20 [Ordering Paragraphs 2 and 3].)
Sprint filed a timely application for rehearing of D.08-12-005. Sprint challenges the Commission's determination that there was no discrimination, and the correctness of two findings of fact in the Decision. Sprint also requests oral argument under Rule 16.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.3 AT&T filed a Response opposing Sprint's rehearing application.
Specifically, Sprint alleges in its application for rehearing that the Commission erroneously determined that AT&T did not unlawfully discriminate against Sprint when AT&T refused to update Sprint's transiting rates in the same manner as AT&T had done with the transiting rates of Verizon Wireless ("Verizon"). AT&T had updated Verizon's rates after the Commission issued D.04-09-063 ("UNE Relook Decision").4 Sprint alleges that this incorrect determination results from Commission adoption of erroneous Findings of Fact 6 and 7 which state:
6. The carriers that received the revised transiting rates either had a provision in their ICAs that linked those rates to the tandem switching rates or some other provision in their ICA linking their transit rates to rates adopted in the OANAD proceeding.
7. Sprint PCS has not identified any carrier with ICA provisions similar to those in the Sprint PCS agreement that had their transit rates updated following the issuance of D.04-09-063.
Further, in its rehearing application, Sprint contends that it demonstrated that Sprint's ICA and Verizon's ICA were similar and that the Commission adopted Finding of Fact 6 based upon a mistaken reading of the Verizon ICA as amended in 1999. Sprint argues that Commission adoption of Finding of Fact 6 was based on AT&T's "patch-up rationale" offered in its Reply Comments on the Proposed Decision, to which Sprint did not have an opportunity to respond.
We have reviewed each and every allegation set forth in Sprint's application for rehearing, and do not find grounds for granting rehearing. For purposes of clarification, we modify the Decision as set forth below. Rehearing of D.08-12-005, as modified, is denied.
1 The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act"), Pub L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 requires incumbent local exchange carriers ("ILECs"), such as AT&T, to provide a requesting telecommunications carrier interconnection with the ILEC's network. (47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2).) The Act establishes procedures for telecommunications carriers to enter into ICAs. (47 U.S.C. §§ 251, 252.) Sprint and AT&T entered into a negotiated ICA as permitted by 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1).
2 Transiting traffic is traffic carried by a carrier that is not the originating or terminating carrier. It is transport between the originating and terminating carrier. (D.08-12-005, p. 1, fn. 1.) AT&T provides transiting service when it carries transiting traffic.
3 All subsequent rule references are to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise stated.
4 Opinion Establishing Revised Unbundled Network Element Rates for Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba SBC California ("UNE Relook Decision") [D.04-09-063] (2004) ___ Cal.P.U.C.3d ___.
