- On September 18, 2012, a group of Michigan competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) opposed AT&T Michigan’s request that the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) amend its proposed order resolving the parties’ interconnection agreement (ICA) arbitration. The CLECs, which include ACD Telecom, Inc., CynergyComm.Net, Inc., DayStarr, LLC, Lucre, Inc., and Osirus Communications, Inc., had filed a petition for arbitration on October 24, 2011, asserting that the CLECs and AT&T had agreed to use an existing ICA between AT&T and BCR Network Services, Inc. as a baseline agreement, but that the companies were unable to resolve certain terms for a final agreement. On February 15, 2012, the MPSC issued an order adopting the arbitration panel’s recommended decision with respect to the terms in dispute. AT&T, however, now requests modification of the new resale provision which, it argues, would require it, “in contravention of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to provide services to the CLECs based on retail rates that no longer apply” to AT&T’s retail customers. In their opposition, the CLECs argue that the resale language has been fully litigated. “AT&T was fully aware of and had ample opportunity to respond to the CLECs’ position relating to” the resale terms, and thus, according to the CLECs, should be precluded from reopening this issue now. Docket No. U-16906.
Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.
Questions? Please contact firstname.lastname@example.orgRegister
Developments in intercarrier compensation
Popular articles from this firm
If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email email@example.com.
Related topic hubs
"I am a frequent reader of Lexology as it is an efficient and concise service. It is very relevant as a large part of these communications come from law firms, who have a clear interest in marketing their organizations expertise in key areas of business law"