Common use of ISP-Bound Traffic Rebuttable Presumption Clause in Contracts

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.

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.L.P. SBC MISSOURI/VOICESTREAM WIRELESS CORPORATION 3.0 Reservation of Rights 3.1 The Parties reserve the right to raise the appropriate treatment of Voice Over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) and traffic utilizing in whole or part Internet Protocol technology under the Dispute Resolution provisions of this Agreement, including but not limited, to any rights they may have as a result of the FCC’s Order In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Ruling that AT&T’s Phone-to-Phone IP Telephony Services are Exempt from Access Charges, WC Docket No. 02-361 (Rel. April 21, 2004). The Parties acknowledge that there is an on-going disagreement between LECs and ILEC over whether or not, under the law, VoIP traffic or traffic utilizing in whole or part IP technology is subject to reciprocal compensation or switched access charges. The Parties therefore agree that neither one will argue or take the position before any regulatory commission or court that this Amendment constitutes an agreement as to whether or not reciprocal compensation or switched access charges apply to that traffic or a waiver by either party of their position or their rights as to that issue. The Parties further agree that they each have reserved the right to advocate their respective positions relating to the treatment and compensation for VoIP traffic and traffic utilizing in whole or part Internet Protocol technology before any state commission or the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) whether in bilateral complaint dockets, arbitrations under Section 252 of the Act, state commission or FCC established rulemaking dockets, or before any judicial or legislative body.

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. AMENDMENTAMENDMENT – KANSAS MISSOURI 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.L.P. SBC MISSOURI/VOICESTREAM WIRELESS CORPORATION 3.0 Reservation of Rights 3.1 The Parties reserve the right to raise the appropriate treatment of Voice Over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) and traffic utilizing in whole or part Internet Protocol technology under the Dispute Resolution provisions of this Agreement, including but not limited, to any rights they may have as a result of the FCC’s Order In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Ruling that AT&T’s Phone-to-Phone IP Telephony Services are Exempt from Access Charges, WC Docket No. 02-361 (Rel. April 21, 2004). The Parties acknowledge that there is an on-going disagreement between LECs and ILEC over whether or not, under the law, VoIP traffic or traffic utilizing in whole or part IP technology is subject to reciprocal compensation or switched access charges. The Parties therefore agree that neither one will argue or take the position before any regulatory commission or court that this Amendment constitutes an agreement as to whether or not reciprocal compensation or switched access charges apply to that traffic or a waiver by either party of their position or their rights as to that issue. The Parties further agree that they each have reserved the right to advocate their respective positions relating to the treatment and compensation for VoIP traffic and traffic utilizing in whole or part Internet Protocol technology before any state commission or the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) whether in bilateral complaint dockets, arbitrations under Section 252 of the Act, state commission or FCC established rulemaking dockets, or before any judicial or legislative body.