from its provision of services to wholesale VoIP providers, Talk America permits Core to purchase these facilities at TELRIC rates. Accordingly, we directed the Parties to adopt language in the ICA consistent with this finding. December 2013 Order at 105-106. Core asserts that, although the Commission correctly ruled that entrance facilities must be priced at TELRIC rates, we did not stipulate what these rates should be. Core acknowledges that, during this proceeding, CTL submitted for entry into the record a cost study and proposed TELRIC rates for entrance facilities as an alternative to its position that all entrance facilities should be priced at tariffed special access rates. However, Core submits that CTL’s cost study is flawed, is not TELRIC-based, is now more than six years old, and in no way allows the Commission to establish TELRIC rates for the entrance facilities at hand. Therefore, Core argues that this cost study should be rejected and that the Commission should institute a generic investigation to determine the appropriate TELRIC rates that CTL may charge. Core points out that the entrance facility cost study CTL submitted is the first of its kind that CTL has brought before the Commission. Core notes that the issues rooted in such a study are complex and may include, inter alia, issues related to cost study methodology, economic lives, cost of capital, and CTL’s accounting, engineering, and purchasing practices. For this reason, Core suggests that, although entrance facilities are the only TELRIC element in question in this proceeding, the Commission should also examine the entirety of CTL’s unbundled network elements (UNE) and reciprocal compensation rates to ensure proper TELRIC pricing. Petition at 4-7, n.12. Core posits that, during the pendency of such an investigation, the Commission should order CTL to make its entrance facilities available at the TELRIC rates that have been established for Verizon Pennsylvania, LLC. Core points out that the Commission approved such TELRIC methodology in Generic Investigation Re Verizon Pennsylvania Inc.’s Unbundled Network Element Rates, Docket No. R-00016683, (Order entered July 16, 2004) (July 2004 Verizon Order). In the alternative, Core asserts that the
Commission should clarify that CTL must establish rates for entrance facilities according to the rates Core outlines in its rebuttal testimony. Core professes that it established such rates by correcting the flaws Core alleges are present in CTL’s own study. Id. at 7-8, n.10. In its Answer, CTL avers that Core’s Petition fails to meet the Duick standard for reconsideration or clarification because it simply reiterates the position and proposals that Core set forth in the record developed in this proceeding. CTL reasons that because the Commission did not adopt any of these proposals in our December 2013 Order, it should not do so now, arguing that reconsideration on the matter is not necessary for the Parties to implement a conforming agreement. However, CTL contends that if the Commission does determine that clarification regarding the appropriate pricing of entrance facilities is necessary, then the cost study CTL submitted as an alternative to its primary position in this proceeding should be used as the basis for setting such rates in the conforming ICA. Answer at 1-4. CTL refutes Core’s claim that the cost study CTL submitted is not TELRIC based. CTL points out that Core did not provide a cost study of its own and that, in submitting the rebuttal testimony of its witness in correcting alleged flaws in CTL’s cost study, Core failed to outline any specific TELRIC pricing requirement that CTL did not follow in setting its rates. Likewise, CTL argues that Core’s Petition lacks any citation to specific testimony by Core to support a clarification by the Commission that Core’s adjustments to CTL’s cost study would produce TELRIC-compliant rates for entrance facilities. CTL professes that its cost study was produced by establishing entrance facility rates at each of its four tandems, setting forth a least cost, most efficient network.” CTL asserts that, if Core chooses to directly interconnect with CTL at other locations besides CTL’s tandems, CTL has proposed individual case basis (ICB) language to address such requests and to provide cost-based pricing at TELRIC rates. Id. at 4-6, nn.18, 23.
(b) Positions of the Parties Core submits that it has continually advocated a definition of Section 251(b)(5) traffic which includes telecommunications traffic exchanged between a LEC and a CMRS provider that originates and terminates in the same MTA. In its provision of wholesale services to VoIP carriers, Core envisions scenarios in which a VoIP provider may contract with it to transmit traffic originating with CMRS providers to and from the PSTN. Under such scenarios, Core argues that bill and keep compensation should apply when such VoIP-CMRS traffic is intraMTA in nature. Core asserts that the classification of VoIP-CMRS traffic as local, and therefore subject to bill and keep compensation under Section 251(b)(5), should be based upon whether a VoIP-CMRS call originates and terminates within the broader MTA, and not the narrower wireline local calling area advocated by CTL. Core 2014 M.B. at 6-9. Core points out that Section 1.74 of the Parties’ proposed ICA defines “Local VoIP-PSTN Traffic” as “VoIP-PSTN traffic that physically originates and terminates within the CenturyLink local calling area.” In Core’s view, adoption of CTL’s position, and use of the term “Local Traffic” in its proposed definition, would greatly, and wrongly, restrict the scope of the bill and keep compensation regime to VoIP-CMRS traffic that is local by wireline standards. Id. at 9-11 Core argues that its own position is consistent with the USF/ICC Transformation Order because it differentiates between local calling for VoIP-CMRS traffic and for wireline VoIP traffic. Core submits that CMRS traffic is codified in the USF/ICC Transformation Order under the FCC’s definition of Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic at 47 C.F.R § 51.701(b). Specifically, Core notes that under 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(b)(2), Non-Access Telecommunications Traffic is defined to include “[t]elecommunications traffic exchanged between a LEC and a CMRS provider that, at the beginning of the call, originates and terminates within the same Major Trading Area.”