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 (16)
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 filing an action at the appropriate Commission and 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 (10)
ISP-Bound Traffic Rebuttable Presumption. 5.4.1 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 subject to the compensation terms in this Section 5.4. 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 5.3.2 for Section 251(b)(5) Traffic and ISP-Bound Traffic.
Sample 1See All (4)
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. 00002 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 083004 3.0 Reservation of Rights
Sample 1
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
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

  • Counterparts; Electronic Signatures and Transmission (a) This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Agreement by Electronic Transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Agreement.

  • 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:

  • Control of Securities Accounts Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Trust agrees that each of the Collection Account, the Note Payment Account, the Certificate Payment Account and the Reserve Account will only be established at an Eligible Institution that agrees substantially as follows: (i) it will comply with “entitlement orders” (as defined in Section 8-102(a)(8) of the Relevant UCC) relating to such accounts issued by the Indenture Trustee without further consent by the Trust; (ii) until the termination of the Indenture, it will not enter into any other agreement relating to any such account pursuant to which it agrees to comply with entitlement orders of any Person other than the Indenture Trustee; and (iii) all assets delivered or credited to it in connection with such accounts and all investments thereof will be promptly credited to such accounts.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.