• On September 4, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada’s decision to dismiss Autotel’s complaint concerning an interconnection agreement (ICA) dispute with Nevada Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T of Nevada, but remanded the case back to the district court in order to evaluate whether Autotel can lodge a separate claim against AT&T pursuant to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. Autotel alleged in its complaint that it sought to interconnect with AT&T to provide service in certain AT&T territories in Nevada, but that AT&T refused to negotiate in good faith. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss Autotel’s good faith claim because it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The court noted, however, that Autotel alleged that AT&T “refused to pay reciprocal compensation as required by 47 CFR 51.717(b),” which states that a CMRS provider operating under an ICA predating the 1996 Act is allowed to renegotiate its ICA under the post-1996 Act regime without termination liability or other contractual penalty. The Ninth Circuit ruled that it would “leave it to the district court to consider in the first instance what, if any, impact these changes have on any claim Autotel may have under Section 51.717.” Autotel v. Nevada Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T of Nevada, No. 10-15663 (9th Cir.).