The Michigan Public Service Commission reversed an arbitration...

with IP interconnection because the applicable equipment was owned by a “separate, but affiliated, out-of-state” company, said the order. Without intervention from the PSC, Sprint in the order said “it will be forced to use inefficient and expensive TDM technology to the financial detriment of the company.” According to Section 251(c)(2) of the 1996 Telecom Act, AT&T Michigan is required to provide IP-to-IP interconnection in the same way that it requires TDM interconnection, said Sprint. AT&T said this interconnection requirement does not extend to IP interconnection, and this legal question is “currently pending” before the FCC in a rulemaking proceeding. The PSC acknowledged the FCC’s rulemaking, but it said the FCC did not ask state commissions to “refrain from deciding on the issue.” State commissions are not required to delay their decisions on IP interconnection pursuant to the 2nd Circuit Court’s decision in Southern New England Telephone Company v Comcast Phone of Connecticut, Inc., decided earlier this year, said the PSC order. The PSC said AT&T Michigan failed to provide a reasonable argument on why Sprint’s proposed IP interconnection is not technically feasible, said the order. AT&T Michigan alleged that the softswitch used to provide IP service to its customers was owned by its out-of-state affiliate SBCIS, and is not part of the AT&T Michigan’s network. The PSC said AT&T Michigan and SBCIS work together to operate a network for IP and TDM-based telephone exchange service, and AT&T Michigan is still required to provide Sprint with IP interconnection. In addition, AT&T Michigan can’t use the location of IP softswitch as a reason to deny Sprint access to IP interconnection, said the order. “Based on the Commission’s view of the facts in this case, it appears AT&T Michigan is feigning inability to provide IP interconnection in order to avoid its Section 251(c) obligations,” said the order. The Michigan PSC should be congratulated for promoting “modern and efficient” IP technology implementation, said Charles McKee, Sprint vice president-government affairs, in a statement. “By ruling that AT&T must allow carriers to interconnect using IP, the Commission has taken an important step in providing customers the benefits and efficiencies of IP technology,” said McKee. “Sprint is also pleased that the Michigan PSC ruled favorably on other pro-competitive provisions of Sprint’s proposed interconnection agreement that will allow Sprint to exchange traffic with AT&T more cost-effectively.” Comptel General Counsel Angie Kronenberg said she also applauded the Michigan PSC for siding with Sprint. “As the PSC found, there is no reason why states should wait for further action from the FCC,” she said. “It is critical that states use their authority granted by Congress to address interconnection when parties cannot agree.” AT&T Michigan did not comment.