Opinion ID: 185839
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Access service

Text: 42 We now turn to the merits of AT&T's argument with respect to its liability for access service. Before the Commission AT&T argued, among other things, that Total in fact had not provided AT&T with access service: 43 In its tariff [Total] claims to provide local transport and local switching, and it has billed AT&T for purportedly providing those services. Both industry practice and Commission regulation, however, establish that local transport consists of the carriage of calls to an end office, and there is clearly no end office behind [Total], only an end user. 44 Motion of AT&T to Dismiss or for Judgment on the Pleadings at 26. The Commission acknowledges that it did not consider AT&T's argument in the Order, but maintains that [h]aving successfully urged the Commission to pierce the Atlas/Total corporate veil, AT&T should not be heard to complain that the Commission failed to consider whether Total would have provided exchange access if it had not been a creature of Atlas. 45 We do not understand AT&T to be questioning whether Total would have provided exchange access if it had not been a creature of Atlas. AT&T's position is simply that Total did not provide exchange access and therefore AT&T should not have to pay it for that. The Commission may regard AT&T as ungrateful but that is not a reason for failing to address its argument. Yet the Order is silent regarding whether any entity — Total or Atlas or the two combined — actually provided access service to AT&T. We therefore remand the Order to the Commission to consider AT&T's argument that Total did not provide access service.