Circuit Core v. AT&T Decision was released after the entry of our orders in each of the above arbitration proceedings. Moreover, as Verizon notes, we also rejected Core’s attempt to back-bill Verizon for switched access services on several other grounds, none of which Core has challenged in the Petition before us today. Specifically, in our December 2016 Order, we made the following other findings in rejecting Core’s switched access claims: Core wrongly billed Verizon for traffic that was originated by IXCs. December 2016 Order at 60-61. Core improperly billed Verizon for various switched access elements. December 2016 Order at 64-70. Core failed to present the necessary evidence regarding the amount of ISP-bound traffic it terminated vis-à-vis the amount of traffic it terminated, thereby rendering all traffic for which it sought to back-bill Verizon to be local ISP-bound traffic. December 2016 Order at 57. In light of the above discussion, Core’s request for reconsideration of this issue is denied. 3. Applicability of the ICAs’ Definitions for “Local Traffic,” “Reciprocal Compensation,” and “Reciprocal Compensation Traffic” to ISP-bound Traffic (Core Petition at 10-12) a. Positions of the Parties Core next seeks clarification regarding our finding that the Verizon PA ICA’s definitions for “Local Traffic” and “Reciprocal Compensation,” and the Verizon
erroneously ruled that Verizon’s tariffed special access rates, and not the TELRIC rates outlined in Appendix 2, are applicable to the ATCs. In Core’s view, the Commission wrongly relied on Footnote 1 of Appendix 2 for this conclusion. Core Petition at 12-13. Core suggests that to the extent that there is any ambiguity in the Commission’s analysis of Attachment IV, Section 1.1.2 of the Verizon PA ICA, the Commission can resolve this ambiguity by examining other sections of the ICA, particularly, Attachment VIII, Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.3.5. Core submits that these sections govern “meet-point billing,” i.e. the arrangement whereby Verizon provides tandem switching and Core provides end office elements to IXCs for exchange access traffic transiting over Verizon PA’s access tandems to Core telephone numbers. Core argues that ATCs are an integral part of this arrangement because they facilitate the flow of exchange access traffic from the IXCs through Verizon PA’s access tandems and on to Core’s end offices. In Core’s view, when Attachment IV, Section 1.1.2 and Attachment VIII, Section 3.1.3.5 are read in tandem, it is clear that each section requires that the ICA’s TELRIC rates should be applied to ATCs, overriding Footnote 1 of Appendix 2, upon which the Commission relied. Core Petition at 13-14. Core also argues that any ambiguity in the Verizon PA ICA language regarding the appropriate rates to apply to ATCs can be resolved (1) via the ICA’s reference to “Local Interconnection” to include “the provision of Exchange Access Service” and the exchange of more than just local traffic and (2) via the numerous ICA provisions which incorporate Section 251 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TA96). Core submits that it is clear from this statutory provision that ATCs are a form of local interconnection to the extent that ATCs are specifically designed to carry exchange access traffic. Core Petition at 14-15. Core avers that all of the Verizon PA ICA provisions governing local interconnection and the provision of ATCs indicate that the TELRIC rates set forth in
Thus, the TELRIC rates set forth in the body of the Pricing Appendix are applicable only to Local Traffic and local Ancillary Traffic, and not to ATCs. 5. Statute of Limitations Applicable to Claims for Tariffed Interstate Charges (Core Petition at 15-17) a. Positions of the Parties Core is of the opinion that we erred in concluding that a four-year Pennsylvania statute of limitations, as codified at 42 Pa. C.S. § 5525 for generic contract claims, is applicable to Verizon’s claims for unpaid interstate switched and special access charges. See December 2016 Order at 119-20. Core maintains the position that the twoyear federal statute of limitations codified at 47 U.S.C. § 415(a) is applicable. Core contends that the decision of the Fifth Circuit in Castro v. Collecto, Inc., 634 F.3d 779 (5th Cir. 2011)(Castro) and the Commission’s August 2013 Core v. AT&T Order, each of which the Commission relied upon as support for its conclusion, actually support the application of the two-year federal statute. Core Petition at 15-16. Core notes that in Castro, the Fifth Circuit considered whether the term “lawful charges,” as used in 47 U.S.C. § 415(a), should be interpreted to include charges or only tariffed charges. Core states that the Fifth Circuit concluded that “lawful charges” are limited to tariffed rates and because the charges at issue in that proceeding were not tariffed, they were not subject to 47 U.S.C. § 415(a). Core submits that in the August 2013 Core v. AT&T Order, the Commission, citing Castro, found that 47 U.S.C. § 415(a) applies to tariffed, or “lawful” charges. Moreover, Core argues that in the Third Circuit Core v. AT&T Order, the Third Circuit also recognized that Castro was limited to tariffed charges. Accordingly, Core posits that because Verizon’s interstate federal access tariff claims are the very “lawful charges” that were determined under Castro, the August 2013 Core v. AT&T Order, and the Third Circuit Core v. AT&T