• On October 6, 2010, AT&T Tennessee requested that the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (TRA) hold its complaint against Sprint Spectrum L.P. d/b/a Sprint PCS in abeyance while the parties negotiate a potential multi-state resolution to their dispute. AT&T alleged in its complaint that Sprint is improperly delivering interLATA, interMTA traffic over trunks dedicated for local traffic and as a result is failing to pay the appropriate charges for such traffic. Sprint has argued that AT&T unilaterally changed the parties’ billing factor contained in their interconnection agreement and seeks an order requiring AT&T to refund all payments Sprint has made above the “just and reasonable rate.” AT&T seeks an abeyance until Jan. 10, 2011, in the hopes the parties can reach settlement after Sprint submits additional data to AT&T concerning the traffic ratios in dispute. Docket No. 10-00026.
  • On October 5, 2010, Core Communications, Inc. filed a motion with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission requesting an order directing AT&T Communications of PA, LLC and TCG Pittsburgh, Inc. to pay Core approximately $1.425 million “consistent with the Commission’s September 8, 2010 Opinion and Order ... stating that ‘[t]he non-payment of appropriate intercarrier compensation from one CLEC to another CLEC cannot be condoned as a matter of law and as a matter of sound regulatory policy.’” Core filed its complaint against AT&T in May 2009, alleging that AT&T was refusing to compensate Core for terminating AT&T traffic in Pennsylvania. Core requested immediate payment or, in the alternative, that the Commission direct AT&T to place the amount in dispute into escrow and pay Core at the rate of $0.014/minute for all AT&T calls that Core terminates to its end user customers. In either case, Core argued, “[u]nless swift and decisive action is taken now, AT&T will have every incentive to continue to withhold any payment to Core for the continuing use of its termination services while, because of its significant resources, it erects every conceivable legal maneuver to delay the final resolution of this proceeding.” Docket Nos. C-2009-2108186 and C-2009-2108239.