2. Procedural History
On February 27, 2006, the 11 rural local exchange carriers (RLECs) identified in the caption to this proceeding filed petitions for arbitration of ICAs between themselves and Cingular Wireless LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility (Cingular), the predecessor of AT&T Mobility, pursuant to Section 252(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 USC § 252(b) (the Act), 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(e) and Commission Resolution ALJ-181. On the same day, Omnipoint Communications, Inc. d/b/a (T-Mobile) filed a similar petition for arbitration of an ICA between itself and Pinnacles Telephone Company, one of the 11 RLECs. Because the proceedings presented common issues of law and fact and involved a common party, they were subsequently consolidated by a ruling of the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).1
On April 18, 2006, attorneys for the Petitioners and Respondents filed a joint revised statement of unresolved issues, which indicated that four issues remained unresolved. Those issues were:
1. What is the appropriate reciprocal compensation rate?
2. What traffic between major trading areas (MTAs) is subject to reciprocal compensation?
3. What is the appropriate intra-MTA wireless/RLEC originating ratio for use by parties in billing for the termination of traffic?
4. Who is responsible for the cost of delivering traffic from the originating to the terminating carrier when the call originates from within an RLEC territory?
Issue No. 1, the appropriate reciprocal compensation rate, was further broken down into 19 sub-issues. Subsequently, the parties reached agreement on four of the 19 sub-issues, leaving 15 sub-issues related to fixing the appropriate reciprocal compensation rate for determination by the arbitrator, together with Issues 2 through 4. Issue No. 3, the appropriate intra-MTA wireless/RLEC originating ratio was resolved by stipulation of the parties prior to the evidentiary hearing on July 26, 2006.
After the evidentiary hearing, the assigned ALJ directed Respondents to prepare a table of proposed values that Petitioners could use to calculate a reciprocal compensation rate that would reflect all of Respondents' proposed modifications of Petitioners' cost studies. However, Respondents were unable to comply with this order without obtaining additional data from Petitioners. After hearing from the parties, the assigned ALJ determined that it would be more practical and expedient to decide the remaining unresolved issues before ordering a re-run of the cost studies.
Between August 18, 2006 and October 11, 2006, the parties briefed the remaining issues. Although Commission rules do not require an ALJ acting as an arbitrator of an interconnection agreement to choose between the positions of the parties on an issue-by-issue basis, as is the case in some other states,2 the assigned ALJ chose to adopt that procedure in this case. Accordingly, as to each of the disputed issues and sub-issues, the assigned ALJ accepted the position of one or the other of the parties, unless the results of doing so would have been clearly unreasonable, in which case the assigned ALJ adopted a reasonable position advocated by neither of the parties.
On March 8, 2007, the assigned ALJ issued the Draft Arbitrator's Report (DAR). Comments on the DAR were filed by the parties on April 2, 2007 and Reply Comments were filed on April 17, 2007. On April 12, 2007, the assigned ALJ issued a ruling setting a schedule for re-running of cost studies in accordance with the findings of the DAR. On April 25, 2007, at the joint request of the parties, the assigned ALJ issued a further ruling extending the time allotted for re-running the cost studies to the later of 30 days from the issuance of the FAR or 30 days from the issuance of a ruling finally resolving any disputes among the parties regarding the time required to re-run the cost studies. The procedure for re-running the cost studies was further modified by an ALJ Ruling on June 28,2007 and the time to re-run the cost studies was further extend by the assigned ALJ in another ruling issued August 23, 2007.
On September 28, 2007 and October 16, 2007, Petitioners filed the revised cost studies. On October 22, 2007, Respondents filed comments on the revised cost studies; Petitioners filed reply comments on October 31, 2007.
On January 14, 2008, the assigned ALJ issued the FAR. A typographical error in the ordering paragraph of the FAR was corrected by an ALJ ruling on January 16, 2008.
On February 13, 2008 the parties filed signed ICAs incorporating the conclusions in the FAR (Conformed Agreements). Petitioners simultaneously filed a statement3 (Petitioners' Statement) urging the Commission to reject the Conformed Agreements on the grounds that (a) they failed to comply with the requirements of Section 252 of the Act and (b) the FAR erroneously subjected traffic between commercial mobile service providers (CMRS providers or wireless carriers) and interexchange carriers (IXCs) to the reciprocal compensation regime. On the same date, Respondents filed statements4, 5 (AT&T Statement and T-Mobile Statement, respectively) urging the Commission to accept the Conformed Agreements as being in full compliance with the Act.
1 T-Mobile is identified throughout this opinion as a Respondent even though it petitioned for arbitration of its ICA with Pinnacles Telephone Company. Cingular and T-Mobile are represented by the same counsel and advance the same legal arguments. Accordingly, for ease of reference we choose to refer to T-Mobile as a Respondent.
2 See, e.g., Missouri Commission Rule 4 CSR 240-36.040(19) which directs the arbitrator to select the position of one of the parties on an issue as his decision unless doing so would be clearly unreasonable or contrary to the public interest.
3 Statement of Calaveras Telephone Company (U 1004 C), Cal-Ore Telephone Co. (U 1006 C), Ducor Telephone Company (U 1007 C), Foresthill Telephone Co. (U 1009 C), Global Valley Networks, Inc. (U 1008 C), Kerman Telephone Co. (U 1012 C), Pinnacles Telephone Co. (U 1013 C), The Ponderosa Telephone Co. (U 1014 C), Sierra Telephone Company, Inc. (U 1016 C), The Siskiyou Telephone Company (U 1017 C), Volcano Telephone Company (U 1019 C) Concerning the Final Arbitrator's Report.
4 Statement of AT&T Mobility on Compensation Agreements: Arbitrated Issue.
5 Statement of T-Mobile on Compensation Agreements: Arbitrated Issues 2 and 4 and Negotiated Provisions.
