FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,761

IV. CONCLUSION
52. For the reasons described above, we hold that YMax has violated sections 203(c) and
201(b) regarding all of the switched access charges in dispute. In particular, YMax's Tariff does not
authorize any of the switched access charges in dispute, because the Called/Calling Parties are not "End
Users" as defined by the Tariff. In addition, the Tariff does not authorize either of the two categories of
switched access charges in dispute - End Office Switching and Switched Transport - because YMax
provides no "termination" of "End User station loops" and "end user lines," as its Tariff requires.
Accordingly, we grant Counts IIlI and IV of AT&T's Complaint.
53. Finally, our finding that YMlax's charges to AT&T are unlawful under sections 203 and
201(b) of the Act will afford AT&T all the relief to which it is entitled. We therefore need not, and do
not, reach the claims stated in the remaining counts of the Complaint.47 Accordingly, we dismiss these
counts without prejudice.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
54. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 203, and 208 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201, 203, and 208, and sections
1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, that Counts IIl and IV of the
Complaint are hereby GRANTED as to liability; and
55. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.720-
1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.720-1.736, that Counts I, II, V, VI, XI, XII, and XIII of
the Complaint are hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
(Continued from previous page)
' See Answer at 42 (YMax Affirmative Defense 5).
147 AT&T stated that a decision that YMax has violated the terms of its Tariff would obviate the need to decide
AT&T's other claims against YMax. See. e.g., Reply Legal Analysis at 9 (asserting that "the Complaint can be
decided on the ground that YMAX has violated its tariffs (and hence sections 203 and 201(b) of the
Communications Act) by assessing charges that are not authorized by its tariff" and that the "issues under the
Commission's CLEC access charge orders and rules, the Commission's Computer Inquiry rules, and section 201(b)
of the Communications Act are relevant only if YMax's tariffs actually authorized the access charges that YMax has
assessed") (emphasis in original).

G. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 2011--35-28Y00046 5761

FCC 11-59

Federal Communications Commission

Upcoming Pages

Here’s what’s next.

upcoming item: 934 934 of 936
upcoming item: 935 935 of 936
upcoming item: 936 936 of 936

Show all pages in this book.

This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.

Tools / Downloads

Get a copy of this page .

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/m1/933/ocr/: accessed October 17, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.

International Image Interoperability Framework (This Page)