• On July 12, 2011, the Nebraska Public Service Commission agreed to partially dismiss a complaint filed by AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. against two Nebraska rural local exchange carriers (RLECs), Hooper Telephone Company and Hartington Telecommunications Co., Inc., with which it has reached a settlement agreement over an access charge dispute. AT&T filed a complaint against 17 Nebraska RLECs on November 17, 2010, alleging that the carriers were seeking to collect an unreasonable increase in access charges resulting from what the RLECs described as “network restructuring.” On February 4, 2011, the RLECs filed formal complaints against AT&T alleging that it was unlawfully refusing to pay their tariffed access charges. Of the 17 RLECs, Hooper and Hartington were able to reach a settlement agreement with AT&T, the terms of which were not disclosed, but the claims of the remaining 15 RLECs and AT&T still remain pending. Docket Nos. FC-1348, FC-1350, FC-1352, FC-1353, FC-1354, and FC-1356.
  • On July 7, 2011, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) denied a motion filed by Cbeyond Communications, LLC to voluntarily dismiss its complaint against AT&T Illinois, but ordered that it would permit the record to be reopened and allow Cbeyond to file an amended complaint. Cbeyond alleged in its March 9, 2010 complaint that AT&T was violating the parties' interconnection agreement (ICA) by unlawfully imposing non-recurring charges when Cbeyond was using a third-party carrier to transport its high-capacity enhanced extended links (EELs), as well as unlawfully charging Cbeyond when it reconfigured transport facilities associated with those EELs. An Administrative Law Judge preliminarily ruled, however, that AT&T was abiding by the terms of the ICA when imposing the charges, after which Cbeyond filed its motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint. AT&T opposed the motion, asserting it would be unfairly prejudiced by Cbeyond’s attempt to circumvent the established procedural schedule. In its ruling, the ICC stated that “This complaint is about money and nothing else. There is no allegation and no evidence that AT&T is refusing to provide service or that AT&T is providing substandard service to Cbeyond. The only question is how much Cbeyond should pay for the service it orders, and receives, from AT&T.” The ICC disagreed, however, with AT&T’s argument and will permit Cbeyond to amend its complaint, stating that “while it is clear that Cbeyond should have made this filing earlier, it is not prejudicial to AT&T to allow this filing.” Docket No. 10-0188.