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
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.
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.
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 – 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 XXXX TELEPHONE, 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 acces...
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.
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.
