8. Assignment of Proceeding

President Michael R. Peevey is the assigned Commissioner and Karen A. Jones is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.

1. The ICA between Sprint PCS and AT&T was negotiated, not arbitrated by the Commission.

2. Under a negotiated agreement, parties are free to negotiate any rates for services, and those rates do not have to be based on TELRIC.

3. AT&T updated the transiting rates charged to those carriers that had "Interconnection Equations" and "OANAD Rate Factors" included in their ICAs.

4. The ICA between Sprint PCS and AT&T does not tie the rates for transiting to the rates for tandem switching.

5. The previous ICA between the parties included a provision that tied the transit rates to tandem switching.

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.

8. The Commission does not mention rates for transiting in D.04-09-063.

9. Sprint PCS unilaterally withheld payment of 2007 bills in an attempt to retrieve payments it made in 2004-2006.

10. The ICA does not identify the appropriate late payment charges to be paid by the "disputing Party" in the event of a billing dispute where the "billing Party" prevails.

1. Section 252(c) of the Telecommunications Act states that TELRIC pricing is only required for arbitrated ICAs.

2. Sprint PCS is not entitled to TELRIC pricing for transiting service.

3. The transiting rates charged Sprint PCS under its ICA with AT&T were not discriminatory, even though they were significantly higher than the rates that other carriers paid.

4. Arbitration decisions do not constitute binding precedent, and the Commission is not bound by any provision it adopted in any prior arbitration proceeding.

5. Sprint PCS' failure to make payments on bills for services other than transiting is a violation of Section 8.2.2 of the ICA.

6. Sprint PCS' attempt to recoup payments more than nine months after the date a bill was issued is a violation of Section 8.2.7.2 of the ICA.

7. Section 17.7.2 of the ICA establishes that "late payment charges" will apply when assessing charges against the disputing Party

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Sprint Spectrum L.P., Wireless Co., L.P. and Cox Communications PCS, L.P. (jointly Sprint PCS) is required to pay AT&T California (AT&T) the rate for transiting service that is specified in the parties' interconnection agreement.

2. Sprint PCS shall, within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, pay to AT&T any and all amounts AT&T has billed and Sprint PCS has withheld to recoup amounts Sprint PCS paid AT&T in the past for transiting.

3. Sprint PCS shall, within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, pay to AT&T late payment charges, from when the amounts were originally withheld, at the three-month commercial paper rate published in the Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15 on the payments withheld by Sprint PCS.

4. Case 07-12-019 is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated December 4, 2008, at San Francisco, California.

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page