12. Reciprocal Compensation
12.1. Recip Comp 2
Issue:
SBC-CA: Is compensation for Section 251(b)(5) Traffic and ISP-Bound Traffic limited to traffic that originates and terminates within the same ILEC local calling area?
MCIm: Do the words "originates and terminates within the same local calling area" depend upon the rating point of the originating and terminating NPA/ NXX?
Agreement Reference: §§ 2.3,(i),(ii); 2.3.1(i), (ii); 16.1
Positions and Discussion
See NIM 4. The same outcome is adopted (i.e., reliance on 13-State Amendment until at least July 1, 2007; potential further arbitration by application due April 1, 2007).
12.2. Recip Comp 4
Issue: What is the appropriate form of inter-carrier compensation for FX and FX-like traffic, including ISP FX traffic?
Agreement Reference: § 2.8
Positions and Discussion
See NIM 4. The same outcome is adopted (i.e., reliance on 13-State Amendment until at least July 1, 2007; potential further arbitration by application due April 1, 2007).
12.3. Recip Comp 5
Issue: Should SBC-CA's (segregating and tracking FX traffic) language be included in the Agreement?
Agreement Reference: §§ 2.9; 2.9.1; 2.9.2; 2.10
Positions and Discussion
See NIM 4. The same outcome is adopted (i.e., reliance on 13-State Amendment until at least July 1, 2007; potential further arbitration by application due April 1, 2007).
12.4. Recip Comp 6
Issue:
SBC-CA:
(g) What is the appropriate treatment and compensation of ISP Traffic exchanged between the Parties outside of the local calling scope?
(h) What types of traffic should be excluded from the definition and scope of Section 251(b)(5) Traffic?
MCIm: Given that SBC-CA's proposal for Recip Comp., Sec. 2.11 does not carefully define categories of traffic that the parties will exchange with each other and how such traffic should be compensated, should SBC-CA's additional terms and conditions for internet traffic set forth in section 2.11 et seq. be included in this Agreement?
Agreement Reference: §§ 2.11; 2.11.1
Positions and Discussion
See NIM 4. The same outcome is adopted (i.e., reliance on 13-State Amendment until at least July 1, 2007; potential further arbitration by application due April 1, 2007).
12.5. Recip Comp 7
Issue:
SBC-CA: In the absence of CPN, what methods should the Parties use to jurisdictionalize the traffic for the purposes of compensation?
MCIm: When CPN is unavailable, what processes should apply for assessing percent local usage to determine appropriate termination rates?
Agreement Reference: §§ 3.3; 13.3; 13.3.1
Positions
SBC-CA proposes use of a Percent Local Usage (PLU) factor.
MCIm proposes parties may jointly exchange industry standard jurisdictional factors, such as PIU, PIIU, or PLU.
Discussion
SBC-CA's proposed language is adopted
SBC-CA's proposed language is specific. In contrast, MCIm proposes: "Parties may jointly exchange industry standard jurisdictional factors, such as PIU, PIIU, or PLU..." (§ 3.3.) MCIm's proposal is not adequately specific, and is likely to lead to disputes. Also, MCIm's proposed language permits the originating party to commingle interstate and intrastate toll traffic, in conflict with the outcome of NIM 15 above.
MCIm points out that § 3.3 is not reciprocal. SBC-CA states it was not SBC-CA's intent that the item be one-way. As provided below, the language shall be made reciprocal.
MCIm correctly points out that SBC-CA's proposed language for §§ 3.3 and 13.3 are nearly identical. SBC-CA does not oppose omitting § 3.3 and leaving § 13.3. To minimize duplication and unneeded language, § 3.3 will be omitted, and § 3.3 shall state: "intentionally omitted."
Further, §§ 13.3 and 13.3.1 will be as proposed by SBC-CA, with SBC-CA's additional language in § 13.3 to make it reciprocal and define PLU (see SBC-CA Opening Brief, page 157, footnote 472; also see Reciprocal Compensation Issue 13 below). The language for § 13.3 shall be:
"For those usage based charges where actual charge information is not determinable by one of the Parties, because the jurisdiction (i.e., interstate vs. local) or origin of the traffic is unidentifiable, the Parties will jointly develop a Percent Local Use (PLU) factor in order to determine the appropriate charges. PLU is calculated by dividing the Local MOU delivered to a Party for termination by the total MOU delivered to a Party for termination."
12.6. Recip Comp 8
Issue: What percent of the traffic should MCIm be permitted to charge at the tandem interconnection rate?
Agreement Reference: §§ 4.4.4(i) and (ii)
Positions and Discussion
See NIM 4. The same outcome is adopted (i.e., reliance on 13-State Amendment until at least July 1, 2007; potential further arbitration by application due April 1, 2007).
12.7. Recip Comp 9
Issue:
SBC-CA:
(i) Should the rates be subject to a true-up upon the conclusion of state proceedings to rebut the 3:1 presumption?
(j) Should the date for retroactive true-up of any disputes relating to the rebuttable presumption be set as the date such disputing Party first thought to rebut the presumption at the Commission?
MCIm: Should SBC's proposed true-up mechanism for ISP traffic be included in the agreement?
Agreement Reference: § 4.9.1
Positions and Discussion
See NIM 4. The same outcome is adopted (i.e., reliance on 13-State Amendment until at least July 1, 2007; potential further arbitration by application due April 1, 2007).
12.8. Recip Comp 13
Issue:
SBC-CA: Is it appropriate to address a delivery process for Meet-Point-Billing access usage records in relation to IntraLATA toll traffic compensation?
MCIm: What billing arrangements should apply to 251(b)(5) Traffic, ISP-Bound Traffic, and IntraLATA interexchange traffic?
Agreement Reference: §§ 13.2 (settled), 13.3, 13.3.1, and 13.6 (settled)
Positions
This issue is related to Reciprocal Compensation Issue 7. SBC-CA seeks usage of PLU, the exchange of reports, and the right to audit.
MCIm proposes omitting §§ 13.3 and 13.3.1, but relying on language in § 3.3. MCIm would permit use of one of three factors (PIU, PIIU or PLU), would require quarterly PIU reports (if the originating party desires to combine interstate and intrastate toll traffic on the same trunk group), and establish the right to audit.
Discussion
MCIm correctly notes that SBC-CA's proposal is not that different from MCIm's. (MCIm Opening Brief, page 162.) Nonetheless, MCIm opposes adoption of § 13.3 and 13.3.1 because they largely duplicate language proposed by MCIm for § 3.3. As noted above (Reciprocal Compensation Issue 7), MCIm's language for § 3.3 is not adopted (due to it not being sufficiently specific and permitting commingling of interstate with intrastate toll traffic in conflict with the outcome of NIM 15). Thus, it is appropriate to adopt SBC-CA's proposed language for § 13.3 and 13.3.1 (as revised above so § 13.3 is reciprocal and defines PLU).
Parties have settled § 13.2. Parties have also settled § 13.6 by adoption of SBC-CA's proposed language. (See MCIm Opening Brief, page 166; also see October 11, 2005 Joint Revised Statement of Unresolved Issues, pages 50-53.) Specifically, the proposed language for § 13.6 is adopted as shown in the October 11, 2005 Joint Revised Statement of Unresolved Issues at page 52 (which is the same as in proposed by SBC-CA witness McPhee, Exhibit 5 at pages 29-30).
12.9. Recip Comp 14
Issue:
SBC-CA: Is it appropriate to include terms and conditions for special access as a dedicated private line service in the Reciprocal Compensation Appendix?
MCIm: Should the parties follow MECAB guidelines for billing special access and meet-point traffic?
Agreement Reference: § 11.12
Positions
SBC-CA says no such terms and conditions need to be included.
MCIm proposes that compensation for Special Access be on a meet point billing basis pursuant to Multiple Exchange Carrier Access Forum (MECAB) guidelines.
Discussion
MCIm's proposed language is adopted.
SBC-CA says special access (e.g., T1, DS1, DS3 facilities) provides a dedicated private line service between two locations on a point-to-point connection. SBC-CA argues that intercarrier compensation is not applicable to special access because both end points of a special access circuit are on one party's network, rather than between two parties' networks. SBC-CA concludes that such traffic is not intercarrier traffic and compensation need not be addressed here.
In contrast, MCIm asserts that special access is not used solely to provide a dedicated private line service but may also be for other uses (e.g., access to an interexchange carrier's switch), and may involve more than one carrier. MCIm proposes language to address the situation of jointly provided special access facilities.
If SBC-CA is correct (that intercarrier compensation is never an issue for special access), it does no harm to include MCIm's proposed language. Rather, the language will simply be surplusage. SBC-CA contradicts itself, however, by also asserting that compensation for special access is a matter for tariffs and, as a result, should not be included here. Tariffs typically address compensation between carriers, or between carriers and parties, not matters only within one party's network. SBC-CA does not cite the tariff to show otherwise (e.g., that it addresses matters only within one party's network).
On the other hand, if MCIm is correct, language should be included for the cases where special access involves more than one carrier. SBC-CA says inclusion of MCIm's language "could conflict with the terms of the tariff." (SBC-CA Opening Brief, page 164.) SBC-CA does not cite the tariff, and show that any actual conflict occurs. Parties agree that MECAB guidelines address billing for access service provided by two or more carriers. There is no viable alternative presented for consideration, and no known reason to reject MCIm's proposed language.
Thus, MCIm's proposed language is adopted.
12.10. Recip Comp 15
Issue Recip Comp 15:
SBC-CA:
(k) What is the proper routing, treatment and compensation for Switched Access traffic including, without limitation, any PSTN-IP-PSTN traffic and IP-PSTN traffic?
(l) Is it appropriate for the Parties to agree on procedures to handle Switched Access traffic that is delivered over local interconnection trunk groups so that the terminating Party may receive proper compensation?
MCIm: What terms and conditions should apply for switched access traffic?
Agreement Reference: § 16
Positions and Discussion
See Recip Comp Issue 17 below.
12.11. Recip Comp 16
Issue:
SBC-CA: Is it appropriate to include a specific change in law provision to address the FCC's NPRM on inter-carrier compensation?
MCIm: Should the contract presume the outcome of any order from the FCC affecting compensation for ISP traffic?
Agreement Reference: § 17; 17.1
Positions and Discussion
See NIM 4. The same outcome is adopted (i.e., reliance on 13-State Amendment until at least July 1, 2007; potential further arbitration by application due April 1, 2007).
12.12. NIM 28, Recip Comp 15 & Recip Comp 17
These three issues are related and are addressed together.
