ones from eighteen tea parties entered into an interconnection agreement that allowed for purchases of circuits with a separate charge of the circuits in the to be quipped with clear channel capability or  believe that the agreement that we have separates the charges you know it seems to me that your argument to the extent i understand it is that you're in total to all the benefits of the agreement and none of the most agreements have got benefits and detriments you don't want to get rid of the whole agreement apparently because it's got some benefits but you want the commission or the judiciary to free you of the detriments and that's not ordinarily contract work i don't see that as screen us of the detriments where you agreed to pay a fee for this clear channel capability woke up whatever that is i have no idea after reading the briefs what  that you agreed to pay a fee for it and now you tell us you don't want to well that's an attempt to be rid of a detriment in the contract we believe we're already paying as a result of ace of a second cost way yes yes but of course that's just because that's what the contract provides well the car don't look i don't even comprehend the firy that this is a case about contract interpretation the contract appears to be perfectly clear to the extent i understand your argument you're arguing that the contract you're intitled not to have this part of the contract enforced against you that's not a question of that contract interpretation at all the contract also allowed for the new pricing schedules to be adopted when that when they were offered by the i c c on those pricing schedules separate the charge that  when you order a complete circuit you're already paying for the c c c capability what i'm first i wish you would use words i'm sorry to say she sees sounds to me like the civilian conservation corps former administration using real words would help would you mind telling me what a clear channel capability is it treats the line such that you can get more data and clearer data through it then a normal line that you would buy don't know what that is do with any clear channel well there are channels in the you really would have helped had the parties devoted some attention in their brief to explaining some of these terms for outsiders since none of us here is a telecom specialist you may all be tele and specifically stated that the clear channel the separate clear channel capability charge only applied if you had a circuit without that capability and had to  the third chance capability old rate that already includes it eighteen t is also then charging us for the separate optional clear channel capability charge so you say there double there they're charging you twice for the same servers yes they're the charging us twice for the clear channel capability portion then they'll suit you and then they'll sue us yes or they'll just cut off your service correct what's the federal violation here sounds like a federal law to be a boss on track requirements yes the cost rates were brought up we're passing by the you know our commerce commission using the federal law section beyond the cost base rates that it's a violation of federal law but federal law says that the parties can contract around those federal requirements that's correct they can but we didn't agree to that because the service already why don't you just not pay did you tell a t n t we're not going to pay you because you know right to this you're not giving us anything you've already charged us for clear channel capacity well they've anything from eighteen you're just getting a bill you already have to clear channel past you know i think so if you're if you're being billed for something you're not getting anything if you haven't already why don't you just the commission interpreted the plain language of that contract to require c b r to pay the separate clear channel charge when it orders a circuit with clear channel capability and c b r that is not due course they're arguing that that you're you're on your billing them for something that they're already paid for you're not giving them a new service well we are clearly giving them t your billion him not billion billion this company for the same thing that they've already paid for that's not true that is their argument i know us through what's the fact that the truth is we have a contract that sets out to separate race and we're charging two separate rates the contract sets with the standard nonrecurring charge for provisioning the circuit and it says every year something like these are these are one time non recurring charges associated with the ordering of the facility so when they order this particular kind of facility there is a one time charge yes because the contract says if you order the facility and as i quickly next next time when you write this contract instead of saying when you order such a circuit they'll be a feel a dollar and they'll be a separate add additional fee of a dollar your contract will say when you order one of these circuits they'll be a fee of two dollars and then we won't have this fight i think this right your honor they would have to rewrite the contract if they want yes i understand rewriting the contract may make some sense but and then no one will be arguing about double billing yeah i think if the contract had different language and provided yes inglefield i think that that would be that but here the commission as a commission found the contract what was the second fee order included the clear channel capacity do they have to pay a second fee why is there a second fee to be paid later it's it's needed the same time or what it's paid at the same time it's all it's an initial you know you order a circuit and it may have all kinds of options and variations for the fee schedule is a that lengthy fee schedule his contract says there's a standard order and charge and then if you order optional features at the same time here the dish will charges that apply at the same time so that's so in that situation it wouldn't be fee now you saying that they later have to pay the fee for the clear channel capacity again when they paid for it when they got the line in the first place not later it's the number of fees or at the same time it's like if you go to mcdonald's and you order off the menu there's a fee for each thing that you order and so that the fees that apply the price is applied and on what you will have but  together it exceeds what the f c c would order in a direct proceeding to measure the costs under the t e l r i c approach yes i hate to try to initialism right that's their argument and it doesn't have anything to do with whether there's one two three or five it has to do with whether the aggregate a male eighty n t is collecting for setting up a clear channel search it exceeds what the t e o are i see rape would be calculated independently correct i believe that is their argument and as the commission and the the district court found it doesn't matter because that when you look at all the rates that you're applying when we order a circuit with clear channel capability you're charging us more than your cost which they assert you know violates didn't the contract didn't it doesn't conduct and contract and leave you free to charge anything on the contract specifies these particular fees that that is what the commission found and that is and the exact reason we're charging that they're bound by contract to pay them they're specified by the contr it's a really that's and the federal law permits parties to contract around the federal requirements correct and that's that's what in essence the parties have done here and the commission's decision didn't didn't rule on any federal question sign or stand it was purely a their contract expired years ago and it's now on kind of an evergreen status where unless somebody terminates it it just continues but they're certainly free to attempt to renegotiate the contract or negotiate a new contract and i think that's so you're saying they they may have overpaid may not have realized they were overpaid they made some they may have blundered right that well they don't like their contract rates and what it provides and i think that it's more than they should be paying but i wouldn't i didn't name now when they signed the contract what did they have any idea what the rates would be here yes the contract had rates at and this contract was signed in two circuits in the order it's seventy dollars and thirty two cents no return charge in each additional one hundred eighty seven of those prices are in the pricing schedule contract so that's what the what the commission did here they'd be i don't know if i c prices and that's why you have to split split out the different circuits so if they order so the first quarter will be seventy dollars and thirty two cents any additional search they order in that same service order will be less than eighty cents for the dish last so the new painted in existence two thousand and four in the contract when they submitted you meant that the parties agree that only the prices are going to change that just keep them in importing the prices that the commission decided the language was and change the application of this champ clear channel knew what the clear channel capacity feature was going to cost and you pay that for us and now you're complaining because i mean would you agree to pay that order them separately it was a separate charge and the circuits didn't come but the price of the circuit didn't already include the clear channel capability after the revisions the price of the circuit already builds in the cost of the clear channel capability so we were only supposed to have to pay the separate clear channel capability charge if we had already had a circuit or had ordered a circuit without it so are you saying you had to pay for this clear channel capability even though you didn't w that mcdonald's analogy maybe so the original pricing is that is the value right you get the big mac you get the five you get the color and your argument is that they're then adding on the cost of the thank you ok well thank you thank you very much