Sprint Fires Back at AT&T in Fight Over Interconnection Rules
Sprint Nextel accused AT&T of “flouting” the 2006 order approving the AT&T-BellSouth merger after the Bell sought a declaratory ruling in an interconnection dispute (CD Feb 8 p9). Sprint has tried to extend to other states an interconnection agreement with AT&T in Kentucky, under a merger condition allowing such agreements to be “ported.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
“AT&T’s Petition is nothing but its latest tactic in a seemingly endless arsenal, flouting the Commission’s Merger Order by refusing to honor its promises,” Sprint said in a FCC filing. “The Commission should promptly dismiss AT&T’s delaying tactic, initiate enforcement proceedings and impose penalties upon AT&T for its brazen refusal to comply with the Merger Conditions.” The petition would allow AT&T to “renege on the most basic commitments it made” to obtain FCC approval of the merger, Sprint said.
Sprint accused AT&T of launching a “collateral attack” on the jurisdiction of the state commissions that have ruled against it. AT&T “provided no explanation why state commissions should not continue to resolve the pending Merger Condition matters under their concurrent jurisdiction,” Sprint said. “Indeed, the arguments in AT&T’s Petition highlight the reasons a state Commission is the appropriate forum for resolving these matters.”
In other comments filed at the FCC, Intrado said AT&T does not want to “comply with the spirit and the purpose of its merger commitments,” as evidenced by the dispute. “AT&T’s position only serves to further its efforts to maintain separate and distinct operating regions (9-state and 13-state) in contravention of its previous arguments and commitments to integrate the companies, which it made to garner support for the approval of the merger,” Intrado said.
MetroPCS said AT&T must not be allowed to “eviscerate” the agreement. “Analysis reveals that this condition was intended to allow for ease of market entry, advance the best practices of the acquired company and to reduce the transaction costs associated with such agreements,” the carrier said. “These goals would be advanced by allowing porting of the agreement which is at issue.” Comcast said AT&T wants to “impose unreasonable and unwarranted restrictions” on the merger agreement.