FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,743
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
finding, we grant Counts III and IV of the Complaint.6 Because our grant of these Counts will afford
AT&T all the relief to which it is entitled, we find it unnecessary to address the remaining unsevered
Counts in the Complaint and dismiss them without prejudice.7
2. For purposes relevant to this proceeding, AT&T is a nationwide provider of
interexchange (i.e., long distance) services, also called an interexchange carrier ("IXC").s YMax is
certificated as a competitive local exchange carrier ("CLEC") throughout the United States.9
3. Although YMax is widely certificated as a CLEC, it lacks many typical local exchange
carrier ("LEC") characteristics. YMax does not provide any physical transmission facilities connecting
(Continued from previous page)
Analysis"): Answer of YMax Communications Corp. (filed Nov. 29. 2010) ("Answer"); Legal Analysis in
Opposition to Fonnal Complaint ("Answer Legal Analysis"); Supplement to Answer of YMax Communications
Corp. (filed Dec. 2, 2010) ("Supp. Answer"); AT&T's Reply to Numbered Paragraphs in YMax's Answer (Erratum)
(original filed Dec. 6, 2010, correction filed Dec. 22, 2010) ("Reply"); AT&T's Reply Legal Analysis in Support of
its Formal Complaint ("Reply Legal Analysis"); Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed Facts and Key Legal
Issues (filed Dec. 16, 2010) ("Joint Statement"): Erratum & Supplemental Answer to YMax Communications Corp.
Answers to Interrogatories (original filed Dec. 30, 2010, correction filed Jan. 10. 2011) ("YMax Answers to
Interrogatories"): AT&T's Initial Brief in Support of its Formal Complaint (filed Jan. 20, 2011) ("AT&T Initial
Brief'); Initial Brief of YMax Communications Corp. (filed Jan. 20, 2011) ("YMax Initial Brief'); AT&T's Reply
Brief in Support of its Formal Complaint (filed Jan. 27, 2011) ("AT&T Reply Brief'): Reply Brief of YMax
Communications Corp. (filed Jan. 27, 2011) ("YMax Reply Brief"); Affidavit of Jeffrey D. Owens, attached as Ex.
A to Complaint ("Owens Aff."); Joint Declaration of Ardell Burgess and Pam Britt, attached as Ex. C to Complaint
("Burgess & Britt Decl."); Declaration of Mark Pavol. attached as Ex. I to Answer ("Pavol Decl."); Declaration of
Paul J. Calabro, attached as Ex. 2 to Answer ("Calabro Decl."); Declaration of Jon Jones, attached as Ex. 3 to
Answer ("Jones Decl."); Declaration of Daniel Borislow, attached to Supp. Answer ("Borislow Decl."); Reply
Affidavit of Jeffrey D. Owens. attached as Ex. D to Reply ("Owens Reply Aft."): Joint Reply Declaration of Ardell
Burgess and Pamr Britt, attached as Ex. E to Reply ("Burgess & Britt Reply Decl."): Deposition of Daniel Mark
Borislow, attached as Ex. 22 to AT&T Initial Brief ("Borislow Dep."); Deposition of Mark Pavol, attached as Ex. 23
to AT&T Initial Brief ("Pavol Dep."); Deposition of Paul Calabro, attached as Ex. 24 to AT&T Initial Brief
("Calabro Dep."); Deposition of Jeffrey D. Owens, attached as Ex. 25 to AT&T Initial Brief ("Owens Dep."); Facts
to Which YMax Refused to Stipulate in the Joint Statement But Which Mr. Pavol Verified as True in His
Deposition, attached as Appendix B to AT&T Initial Brief ("Appendix B").
6 AT&T elected to bifurcate its claims for damages pursuant to section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules. 47
C.F.R. 1.722(d). Therefore, this Order addresses AT&T's liability claims only. Complaint at 8, 13. At an
appropriate time, AT&T may file a supplemental complaint for damages. 47 C.F.R. 1.722(e).
7 See Reply Legal Analysis at 9; AT&T Initial Brief at 4-5 & App. A; AT&T Reply Brief at 12. We therefore
dismiss without prejudice Counts 1, II, V, VI, XI, XII, and XIII. We note that, in these Counts, AT&T raises
credible allegations that, inter alia, YMax's switched interstate access charges violate the "functional equivalent"
standard and the rate-mirroring standard of section 61.26 of the Commission's rules. We also note that we need not,
and do not, address issues regarding the intercarrier compensation obligations, if any, associated with Voice over
Internet Protocol ("VolP") traffic in this Order. "The Commission has never addressed whether interconnected
VoIP is subject to intercarrier compensation rules and, if so, the applicable rate for such traffic," and is "seek[ing]
comment on the appropriate intercarrier compensation framework for [VoIP] traffic" in a pending proceeding.
Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109. GN Docket No. 09-51, CC Docket
Nos. 01-92, 96-45, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC I 1-13, 608
(rel. Feb. 9, 2011). Moreover, we emphasize that this Order addresses only the particular language in YMax's Tariff
and the specific configuration of YMax's network architecture, as described in the record.
SSee, e.g., Joint Statement at 2, I.
9 See, e.g., Joint Statement at 2, 3.
Federal Communications Commission
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011, book, April 2011; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52169/m1/915/: accessed May 27, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.