- On March 30, 2012, Cox California Telcom, LLC and Vaya Telecom, Inc. filed a joint motion with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to extend the statutory deadline for the CPUC to resolve Cox's complaint against Vaya. Cox filed its complaint in September 2011, alleging that Vaya was refusing to pay tariffed intrastate access charges for traffic sent to Cox. Vaya, however, stated that all of the traffic it sent to Cox was IP-originated traffic and therefore such traffic is jurisdictionally interstate and subject to reciprocal compensation rules. Vaya also argued that, because the traffic at issue was sent prior to the FCC's November 18, 2011 Intercarrier Compensation Reform Order and Cox declined to enter into a interconnection agreement, a default bill-and-keep arrangement exists between the carriers. In their joint motion to extend the statutory deadline, the carriers stated that it will be impossible to resolve Cox's complaint by the September 9, 2012 statutory deadline due to delays in discovery. The carriers requested that the CPUC extend the deadline by at least six months. Docket No. 11-09-007.
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact email@example.com or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
Developments in intercarrier compensation
- Arent Fox LLP
- Ross A. Buntrock , Jonathan E. Canis , Michael B. Hazzard , Stephanie A. Joyce and Adam D. Bowser
- April 9 2012
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at firstname.lastname@example.org.
“The Lexology newsfeed is very relevant to my practice and I like that you can tailor the newsfeed to include specific practice areas. I enjoy seeing a variety of approaches and I will read multiple articles on the...
“The Lexology newsfeed is very relevant to my practice and I like that you can tailor the newsfeed to include specific practice areas. I enjoy seeing a variety of approaches and I will read multiple articles on the same topic for the purpose of getting the fullest understanding of a new law, a court case or other legal development.”
Audrey E Mross
Labor & Employment Attorney
Munck Carter LLP