ISP-Bound Traffic Rebuttable Presumption Clause Samples

The ISP-Bound Traffic Rebuttable Presumption clause establishes a default assumption regarding the classification or handling of internet traffic that is directed toward Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In practice, this means that unless evidence is presented to the contrary, certain types of traffic—such as data packets or communications addressed to ISP-managed networks—are presumed to fall under specific regulatory, contractual, or billing categories. This presumption streamlines the process of managing and resolving disputes about traffic classification by shifting the burden of proof to the party challenging the default assumption, thereby promoting efficiency and reducing ambiguity in network operations or settlements.
ISP-Bound Traffic Rebuttable Presumption. 6.3.5.1 In accordance with Paragraph 79 of the FCC’s ISP Compensation Order, the Parties agree that there is a rebuttable presumption that any of the combined Section 251(b)(5) Traffic, ISP-Bound Traffic and, in AT&T-12STATE, Wholesale Local Switching Traffic exchanged between the Parties exceeding a 3:1 terminating to originating ratio is, for purposes of Intercarrier Compensation, presumed to be ISP-Bound Traffic subject to the compensation terms in this Section 6.3.5 above. Either Party has the right to rebut the 3:1 ISP-Bound Traffic presumption by identifying the actual ISP-Bound Traffic by any means agreed by the Parties, or by any method approved by the Commission. If a Party seeking to rebut the presumption takes appropriate action at the Commission pursuant to Section 252 of the Act and the Commission agrees that such Party has rebutted the presumption, the methodology and/or means approved by the Commission for use in determining the ratio shall be utilized by the Parties as of the date of the Commission approval and, in addition, shall be utilized to determine the appropriate true-up as described below. During the pendency of any such proceedings to rebut the presumption, the Parties will remain obligated to pay the reciprocal compensation rates set forth in Section 6.2 above for Section 251(b)(5) Traffic and the rates set forth in Section 6.3.4.2
View SourceView Similar (21)
ISP-Bound Traffic Rebuttable Presumption. In accordance with Paragraph 79 of the FCC’s ISP Compensation Order, LEC and ILEC agree that there is a rebuttable presumption that any of the combined Section 251(b)(5) Traffic and ISP-Bound Traffic exchanged between LEC and ILEC exceeding a 3:1 terminating to originating ratio is presumed to be ISP-Bound Traffic subject to the compensation and growth cap terms in this Section 2.0. Either party has the right to rebut the 3:1 ISP presumption by filing an action at the appropriate Commission and identifying the actual ISP-Bound Traffic by any means mutually agreed by the Parties, or by any method approved by the Commission. If a Party seeking to rebut the presumption takes appropriate action at the Commission pursuant to section 252 of the Act and the Commission agrees that such Party has rebutted the presumption, the methodology and/or means approved by the Commission for use in determining the ratio shall be utilized by the Parties as of the date of the Commission approval and, in addition, shall be utilized to determine the appropriate true-up as described below. During the pendency of any such proceedings to rebut the presumption, LEC and ILEC will remain obligated to pay the presumptive rates (reciprocal compensation rates for traffic below a 3:1 ratio, the rates set forth in Section 2.2.2 for traffic above the ratio) subject to a true-up upon the conclusion of such proceedings. Such true-up shall be retroactive back to the date a Party first sought appropriate relief from the Commission.
View SourceView Similar (12)
ISP-Bound Traffic Rebuttable Presumption. 3.9.2.1 In accordance with Paragraph 79 of the FCC’s ISP Compensation Order, the Parties agree that there is a rebuttable presumption that any of the combined Section 251(b)(5) Traffic and ISP-Bound Traffic exchanged between the Parties exceeding a 3:1 terminating to originating ratio is presumed to be ISP-Bound Traffic. Either Party has the right to rebut the 3:1 ISP-Bound Traffic presumption by identifying the actual ISP- Bound Traffic by any means mutually agreed by the Parties, or by any method approved by the Commission. If a Party seeking to rebut the presumption takes appropriate action at the Commission pursuant to Section 252 of the Act and the Commission agrees that such Party has rebutted the presumption, the methodology and/or means approved by the Commission for use in determining the ratio shall be utilized by the Parties as of the date of the Commission approval. During the pendency of any such proceedings to rebut the presumption, the Parties will remain obligated to pay the rates set forth in Section 3.9.1.2 for Section 251(b)(5) Traffic and ISP-Bound Traffic.
View SourceView Similar (6)
ISP-Bound Traffic Rebuttable Presumption. In accordance with Paragraph 79 of the FCC’s ISP Compensation Order, LEC and ILEC agree that there is a rebuttable presumption that any of the combined Section 251(b)(5) Traffic and ISP-Bound Traffic exchanged between LEC and ILEC exceeding a 3:1 terminating to originating ratio is presumed to be ISP-Bound Traffic subject to the compensation and growth cap terms in this Section 2.0. Either party has the right to rebut the 3:1 ISP presumption by identifying the actual ISP-Bound Traffic by any means mutually agreed by the Parties, or by any method approved by the Commission. If a Party seeking to rebut the presumption takes appropriate action at the Commission pursuant to section 252 of the Act and the Commission agrees that such Party has rebutted the presumption, the methodology and/or means approved by the Commission for use in determining the ratio shall be utilized by the Parties as of the date of the Commission approval and, in addition, shall be utilized to determine the appropriate true-up as described below. During the pendency of any such proceedings to rebut the presumption, LEC and ILEC will remain obligated to pay the presumptive rates (reciprocal compensation rates for traffic below a 3:1 ratio, the rates set forth in Section 2.2.2 for traffic above the ratio) subject to a true-up upon the conclusion of such proceedings. Such true-up shall be retroactive back to the date a Party first sought appropriate relief from the Commission. AMENDMENT– KANSAS INTERCARRIER COMPENSATION FOR ISP-BOUND TRAFFIC AND FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT SECTION 251(B)(5) TRAFFIC (ADOPTING FCC’S INTERIM ISP TERMINATING COMPENSATION PLAN)/SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, L.P.
View SourceView Similar (3)
ISP-Bound Traffic Rebuttable Presumption. The Parties agree that there is a rebuttable presumption that all minutes of use exceeding a 3:1 ratio of terminating to originating traffic are ISP-Bound Traffic minutes subject to the compensation and growth cap terms in this section. Either Party has the right to rebut the 3:1 presumption and such right is governed by the terms of the FCC Internet Order. The Parties may rebut the 3:1 presumption by mutual agreement or by any method approved by the Commission.
View Source

Related to ISP-Bound Traffic Rebuttable Presumption

  • Attachment  C_ CONTRACT AFFIRMATIONS For purposes of these Contract Affirmations, HHS includes both the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Department of State Health Services (DSHS). System Agency refers to HHSC, DSHS, or both, that will be a party to this Contract. These Contract Affirmations apply to all Contractors and Grantees (referred to as “Contractor”) regardless of their business form (e.g., individual, partnership, corporation). By entering into this Contract, Contractor affirms, without exception, understands, and agrees to comply with the following items through the life of the Contract:

  • STATE’S ABILITY TO MODIFY SCOPE OF CONTRACT Subject to mutual agreement between the parties, Enterprise Services reserves the right to modify the Services included in this Contract; Provided, however, that any such modification shall be effective only upon thirty (30) calendar days advance written notice; and Provided further, that any such modification must be within the scope of the Competitive Solicitation for this Contract.

  • Contractor Certification Clauses Contractor represents and warrants that the following statements are true. During the term of the Agreement, Contractor shall not take an action, or omit to perform any act, that results in a representation and warranty becoming untrue. Contractor shall promptly notify the Judicial Council if any representation and warranty becomes untrue. A. No Gratuities. Contractor has not directly or indirectly offered or given any gratuities (in the form of entertainment, gifts, or otherwise) to any Judicial Council personnel with a view toward securing this Agreement or securing favorable treatment with respect to any determinations concerning the performance of this Agreement.

  • Compliance with Child, Family and Spousal Support Reporting Obligations Contractor’s failure to comply with state and federal child, family and spousal support reporting requirements regarding contractor’s employees or failure to implement lawfully served wage and earnings assignment orders or notices of assignment relating to child, family and spousal support obligations shall constitute a default under this Contract. Contractor’s failure to cure such default within ninety (90) days of notice by County shall be grounds for termination of this Contract.

  • Contractor Certification Regarding Ethics The Contractor certifies that the Contractor is now, and shall remain, in compliance with Chapter 42.52 RCW, Ethics in Public Service, throughout the term of this Contract.