5.1.3 Transiting Price (Issue No.: Price Schedule 31)

This issue is the price corollary to NIM 26 (see above). The FAR adopts MCIm's proposal to continue language and rates from the 2001 ICA. SBC-CA seeks reversal, claiming legal and factual error. We disagree.

SBC-CA claims the FAR commits legal error by finding that transit service is a component of indirect interconnection. According to SBC-CA, the FAR ignores extensive legal precedent cited by AT&T-CA. To the contrary, the FAR carefully explains the law (summarized above), and we find no error that requires reversal.

SBC-CA also claims the FAR commits a factual error by its conclusion that the matter was arbitrated in the 2001 ICA. To the contrary, on this issue the FAR states:

"As discussed above (see NIM 26 and Reciprocal Compensation 18), transit service is a fundamental component of indirect interconnection. The applicable price standard is TELRIC. MCIm proposes the same transit service rates that were included in the 2001 ICA. SBC-CA does not oppose the transit rates themselves, only their inclusion in the 2006 ICA. No new facts or law, however, merit a change from the approach used in the 2001 ICA. MCIm's proposed language and rates are identical to those in the 2001 ICA, and are adopted here." (FAR, page 183.)

We find no factual error. Moreover, the approach employed by the Arbitrator of using the results in the 2001 ICA absent new facts or law is sound.

SBC-CA concludes that the parties must be allowed to address this matter by private commercial agreement or tariff and, at a minimum, the FAR should be reversed to hold that transiting, even if required, is not subject to TELRIC rates. For the reasons stated above, do not agree.

We affirm the outcome in the FAR.