ISP-Bound Traffic Rebuttable Presumption Sample Clauses

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
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (20)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
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.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (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.
Sample 1Sample 2See All (5)
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. 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 access charges. The Parties therefore agree that neither one will argue or take the position before any regulatory co...
Sample 1
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.
Sample 1

Related to ISP-Bound Traffic Rebuttable Presumption

  • Electronic and Information Resources Accessibility and Security Standards a. Applicability: The following Electronic and Information Resources (“EIR”) requirements apply to the Contract because the Grantee performs services that include EIR that the System Agency's employees are required or permitted to access or members of the public are required or permitted to access. This Section does not apply to incidental uses of EIR in the performance of the Agreement, unless the Parties agree that the EIR will become property of the State of Texas or will be used by HHSC’s clients or recipients after completion of the Agreement. Nothing in this section is intended to prescribe the use of particular designs or technologies or to prevent the use of alternative technologies, provided they result in substantially equivalent or greater access to and use of a Product.

  • Dissemination of Research Findings and Acknowledgement of Controlled-Access Datasets Subject to the NIH GDS Policy

  • Acknowledgement and Consent to Bail-In of EEA Financial Institutions Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Loan Document or in any other agreement, arrangement or understanding among any such parties, each party hereto acknowledges that any liability of any EEA Financial Institution arising under any Loan Document, to the extent such liability is unsecured, may be subject to the write-down and conversion powers of an EEA Resolution Authority and agrees and consents to, and acknowledges and agrees to be bound by: (a) the application of any Write-Down and Conversion Powers by an EEA Resolution Authority to any such liabilities arising hereunder which may be payable to it by any party hereto that is an EEA Financial Institution; and (b) the effects of any Bail-in Action on any such liability, including, if applicable: (i) a reduction in full or in part or cancellation of any such liability; (ii) a conversion of all, or a portion of, such liability into shares or other instruments of ownership in such EEA Financial Institution, its parent undertaking, or a bridge institution that may be issued to it or otherwise conferred on it, and that such shares or other instruments of ownership will be accepted by it in lieu of any rights with respect to any such liability under this Agreement or any other Loan Document; or (iii) the variation of the terms of such liability in connection with the exercise of the write-down and conversion powers of any EEA Resolution Authority.

  • Safety and Security Procedures Contractor shall maintain and enforce, at the Contractor Work Locations, industry-standard safety and physical security policies and procedures. While at each Court Work Location, Contractor shall comply with the safety and security policies and procedures in effect at such Court Work Location.

  • Federal Medicaid System Security Requirements Compliance Party shall provide a security plan, risk assessment, and security controls review document within three months of the start date of this Agreement (and update it annually thereafter) in order to support audit compliance with 45 CFR 95.621 subpart F, ADP System Security Requirements and Review Process.

  • Agreement to Use Electronic Signatures I agree, and it is my intent, to sign this Contract by accessing State of Indiana Supplier Portal using the secure password assigned to me and by electronically submitting this Contract to the State of Indiana. I understand that my signing and submitting this Contract in this fashion is the legal equivalent of having placed my handwritten signature on the submitted Contract and this affirmation. I understand and agree that by electronically signing and submitting this Contract in this fashion I am affirming to the truth of the information contained therein. I understand that this Contract will not become binding on the State until it has been approved by the Department of Administration, the State Budget Agency, and the Office of the Attorney General, which approvals will be posted on the Active Contracts Database: xxxxx://xx00.xxxx.xx.xxx/psp/pa91prd/EMPLOYEE/EMPL/h/?tab=PAPP_GUEST

  • Mail Order Catalog Warnings In the event that, the Settling Entity prints new catalogs and sells units of the Products via mail order through such catalogs to California consumers or through its customers, the Settling Entity shall provide a warning for each unit of such Product both on the label in accordance with subsection 2.4 above, and in the catalog in a manner that clearly associates the warning with the specific Product being purchased. Any warning provided in a mail order catalog shall be in the same type size or larger than other consumer information conveyed for such Product within the catalog and shall be located on the same display page of the item. The catalog warning may use the Short-Form Warning content described in subsection 2.3(b) if the language provided on the Product label also uses the Short-Form Warning.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!