Comptel praised an interconnection agreement (http://bit.ly/1pMHaYZ) that AT&T...

said it “continues to object to the contract provisions proposed by Sprint (http://bit.ly/PjAmEY) .... The provisions are contrary to the requirements of Section 251 [of the Telecommunications Act] and therefore must be rejected.” The PSC ruled Dec. 6 (http://bit.ly/1k7xkBc) (CD Dec 10 p12) that AT&T has to reach an IP interconnection agreement with Sprint. Under a proposed agreement filed Feb. 25 (CD Feb 27 p16), the sides agreed all traffic Sprint exchanges with AT&T would be delivered in TDM format. They left the IP dispute in the air, saying if they can’t resolve the issue, they may amend the agreement in July to include IP interconnection. The PSC rejected the Feb. 25 agreement on March 18 (http://tinyurl.com/nmuglcw) (CD March 19 p19), saying the sides have to file with the commission any contingency agreement they might have. AT&T’s Tuesday filing said it was only submitting the agreement because the PSC was requiring one be filed. “A competitor has finally been able to exercise its statutory right to interconnect with a major ILEC on an IP basis, an action that spurs the transition and allows consumers to further benefit from this innovative technology,” said Comptel CEO Chip Pickering in a press release (http://bit.ly/QGpG4B). “The Michigan PSC is to be praised for being the first state to stand up to AT&T and force it to comply with its IP interconnection obligations under the ‘96 Act. We hope this action serves as a precedent for other states and the FCC to follow so that carriers’ rights to IP interconnection for voice communications are honored nationwide.” AT&T Michigan had no comment. A Sprint spokesman declined comment.