MDRD handles disputes concerning intercarrier compensation – the system of regulated payments in which carriers compensate each other for the origination, transport, and termination of telecommunications traffic. Cases have addressed questions such as tariff interpretation, access arbitrage, and toll-free 8YY arbitrage.
Representative Cases
AT&T Corp., AT&T Services, Inc., and MCI Communications Services LLC v. Wide Voice, LLC
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 20-362, Bureau ID No. EB-20-MD-005 (2021)
The Commission granted a complaint in part, finding that a competitive local exchange carrier violated section 201(b) of the Act by (1) attempting to evade the Commission’s access stimulation rules in order to continue to charge interexchange carriers for terminating switched access tandem switching and terminating switched access transport; (2) causing call congestion; and (3) unilaterally designating a new point of interconnection in a remote location without demonstrating a net public benefit. The Commission subsequently denied the competitive LEC’s Petition for Reconsideration: AT&T Corp., AT&T Services, Inc., and MCI Communications Services LLC v. Wide Voice, LLC, Order on Reconsideration - Proceeding # 20-362, Bureau ID No. EB-20-MD-005 (2021).
CenturyLink Communications, LLC, WilTel Communications, LLC, and Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Teliax Colorado
Order of Dismissal - Proceeding # 21-194, Bureau ID No. EB-21-MD-001 (MDRD 2021)
The Enforcement Bureau dismissed with prejudice because of settlement a complaint alleging that a competitive LEC violated sections 201(b) and 203 of the Act by assessing certain end office and tandem switching charges under its tariff.
AT&T Services, Inc. and AT&T Corp. v. 123.Net, Inc. (d/b/a Local Exchange Carriers of Michigan and/or Prime Circuits)
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 19-222, Bureau ID Number EB-19-MD-007 (EB 2020)
The Enforcement Bureau released an order holding that a competitive LEC violated sections 201(b) and 203(c) of the Act by billing and collecting end office charges, through its agent, for wireless calls that were placed to AT&T’s toll-free customers. The order directed the competitive LEC to refund the amounts improperly billed plus interest.
MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Wide Voice, LLC
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 19-121, Bureau ID Number EB-19-MD-003 (2019)
The Commission granted in part a complaint challenging a competitive LEC’s tariffed rates for terminating tandem-switched transport access service. The Commission held that the tariff was unjust and unreasonable under section 201(b) of the Act, that the competitive LEC billed under the unlawful tariff provisions in violation of sections 201(b) and 203(c) of the Act, and that the competitive LEC must amend its tariff in accordance with the order.
CenturyLink Communications, LLC f/k/a Qwest Communications Company, LLC v. Verizon Services Corp.; Verizon Virginia LLC; Verizon Washington, D.C., Inc.; Verizon Maryland LLC; Verizon Delaware LLC; Verizon Pennsylvania LLC; Verizon New Jersey Inc.; Verizon New York Inc.; Verizon New England Inc.; Verizon North LLC; Verizon South Inc.
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 18-33, Bureau ID No. EB-18-MD-001 (EB 2019)
The Enforcement Bureau denied a formal complaint alleging that a LEC undercalculated the value of certain credits under a contract tariff between the parties, finding that the challenge to the credits was barred by the express terms of the contract tariff.
AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Network Services, Inc. d/b/a Aureon Network Services
Order on Reconsideration - Proceeding # 17-56, Bureau ID Number EB-17-MD-001 (2018)
The Commission granted in part and otherwise denied a Petition for Reconsideration of a liability order determining that a centralized equal access provider violated the Commission’s rate cap and rate parity rules when it raised its rates in 2013.
Level 3 Communications, LLC v. AT&T Inc., BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Ohio Bell Telephone Company, Wisconsin Bell Telephone Company
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Proceeding # 17-227, Bureau ID No. EB-17-MD-003 (2018)
The Commission denied a complaint alleging that price cap carriers violated sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act by filing tariff revisions that did not properly reduce certain terminating tandem switching and transport charges as required by the Commission’s plan to transition to bill-and-keep.
Statutory and Rule Provisions
- 47 U.S.C. § 201 - prohibition against unjust and unreasonable charges and practices of common carriers
- 47 U.S.C. § 202 - prohibition against unjust and unreasonable discrimination in charges and practices of common carriers
- 47 U.S.C. § 203 - requirement for common carriers to file tariffs and to charge in accordance with tariffed terms
- 47 CFR §§ 1.720-1.740 - formal complaint rules
- 47 CFR §§ 51.700-51.715 - reciprocal compensation rules
- 47 CFR §§ 51.901-51.919 - transitional access service pricing rules
- 47 CFR §§ 61.18-61.26 - tariff rules for non-dominant carriers
- 47 CFR §§ 61.31-61.50 - tariff rules for dominant carriers
Helpful Links
The following links contain background information concerning the legacy intercarrier compensation regime and the Commission’s comprehensive intercarrier compensation reforms to address widespread disputes and arbitrage opportunities.