Findings of Fact

1. The FCC does not specify that the merger commitments will be enforceable only by the FCC.

2. Section 252 grants states the authority under the 1996 Act to approve interconnection arrangements.

3. The reference to state-specific standards and pricing in Merger Commitment 7.1 suggests that the FCC recognizes that the states would be in the best position to determine whether ICAs adhere to unique state standards.

4. AT&T's interpretation of the Commission's authority under Section 766 as simply authorizing physical connections between telephone carriers is too narrow in scope.

5. AT&T makes a convincing argument that the balance of traffic was a consideration before the parties negotiated a bill-and-keep/facility sharing arrangement for the nine BellSouth states.

6. It does not make sense that the parties would not review their traffic data before agreeing to a bill-and-keep/facility sharing provision.

7. Merger Commitment 7.1 does not make a distinction between arbitrated and negotiated ICAs.

1. The FCC clarified that the states have concurrent jurisdiction over interconnection matters arising under the merger commitments.

2. The FCC has specifically carved out a place for state jurisdiction in the enforcement of the merger commitment relating to interconnection.

3. The state has authority under Section 252(e) to utilize its authority under state law to address issues relating to interconnection between carriers.

4. The Commission has authority under Pub. Util. Code § 766 to order interconnection between carriers on such rates, terms and conditions as the Commission deems just and proper.

5. The FCC made it clear in Rule 51.713(b) that balance of traffic is a requirement for instituting a bill-and-keep arrangement.

6. AT&T's July 28, 2008 motion should be granted.

ORDER

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The January 23, 2008 motion of AT&T Inc. to dismiss the application of Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint Spectrum L.P. as agent for WirelessCo L.P. and Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P., and Nextel of California, Inc. (Sprint Nextel) on the basis that this Commission does not have jurisdiction to act is denied.

2. Sprint Nextel is entitled to port-in the Kentucky interconnection agreement, subject to certain limitations. The bill-and-keep/facility sharing provisions of the Kentucky agreement are deemed to be state-specific pricing which is excluded from the porting requirement pursuant to Merger Commitment 7.1.

3. The July 28, 2008 motion of AT&T, Inc. requesting that the Commission take official notice of recent decisions relating to AT&T's motion to dismiss is hereby granted.

4. Application 07-12-017 is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated November 21, 2008, at San Francisco, California.

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page