212 East Grand River Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48906 Tel. (517) 318-3100 ▪ Fax (517) 318-3099 www.clarkhill.com Haran C. Rashes Phone: (517) 318-3019 E-Mail: [email protected] December 27, 2006 Ms. Mary Jo Kunkle Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission 6545 Mercantile Way PO Box 30221 Lansing, MI 48909 Re: In the Matter of the Complaint and Application for Resolution of Alltel Communications, Inc. against Michigan Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Michigan for Improper Assessment of SS7 Messaging Charges MPSC Case No. U-15166 Dear Ms. Kunkle: Enclosed for filing please find the Formal Complaint and Application and Resolution of Alltel Communications, Inc. in the above captioned proceeding. The supporting testimony and exhibits of Ron Williams is also enclosed. These documents have been filed electronically with the Commission’s Electronic Docket Filing System. Very truly yours, CLARK HILL PLC Haran C. Rashes HCR:pat cc: Stephen B. Rowell Philip R. Schenkenberg Enclosures 5369596.1 26828/113002 Detroit Birmingham Lansing Grand Rapids STATE OF MICHIGAN BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION * * * * * In the Matter of the Complaint and Application ) for Resolution of Alltel Communications, Inc. ) against Michigan Bell Telephone Company ) Case No. U-15166 d/b/a AT&T Michigan for Improper Assessment ) of SS7 Messaging Charges ) FORMAL COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR RESOLUTION Pursuant to Sections 201, 203, 204, 205, and 601 of the Michigan Telecommunications Act (“Michigan TA”), as amended, MCL 484.2201 et seq., and the Michigan Public Service Commission’s (“MPSC” or “Commission”) Rules of Practice and Procedure, MAC R 460.17101 et seq., Alltel Communications, Inc. (“Alltel”), by its attorneys, brings this Formal Complaint and Application for Resolution (“Complaint”) regarding Michigan Bell Telephone Co. d/b/a AT&T Michigan (“AT&T”). In support of its Complaint, Alltel files the accompanying testimony of Ron Williams and related exhibits and states as follows: PARTIES 1. AT&T is an incumbent local exchange provider in Michigan, and, according to the Commission’s list of Regulated Local Telephone Companies Licensed in Michigan, has its principal offices at 221 North Washington, Ground Floor, Lansing, Michigan 48933. 2. Alltel is a provider of commercial mobile radio services (“CMRS”) authorized by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to provide wireless telecommunications services in certain geographic areas in Michigan, and has its principal offices at P.O. Box 3373, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203. 5369356.1 26828/113002 JURISDICTION 3. Section 201 of the Michigan TA, MCL 484.2201, provides the Commission with jurisdiction and authority to enforce the Michigan TA and to exercise its delegated authority under the federal Telecommunications Act. 4. Section 203 of the Michigan TA, MCL 484.2203, authorizes the Commission, upon receipt of a complaint, to conduct an investigation, hold hearings, and issue its findings and order under the contested case provisions of the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), MCL 24.201 et seq. 5. Section 204 of the Michigan TA, MCL 484.2204, provides that if two or more telecommunications providers are unable to agree on a matter relating to a regulated telecommunication issue between the parties, then either provider may apply to the Commission for resolution of the matter. 6. Section 205 of the Michigan TA, MCL 484.2205, authorizes the Commission to investigate and resolve complaints. 7. Section 601 of the Michigan TA, MCL 484.2601, permits the Commission to award remedies and/or penalties where a violation of the Michigan TA (or one of the Commission’s orders) is found. 8. As held by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Commission has delegated authority to interpret and enforce interconnection agreements under the federal Telecommunications Act. See e.g., Michigan Bell Tel Co v MCIMetro Access Transmission Services, Inc, 323 F3d 348, 356-57 (6th Cir. 2003). 9. The Commission also has jurisdiction and authority to enforce tariffs for regulated intrastate services. 2 5369356.1 26828/113002 10. This Complaint is filed with regard to SS7 message charges billed by AT&T for wireless calls originated by Alltel and terminated by AT&T in Michigan, and are within the Commission’s jurisdiction. These charges were billed by AT&T to VeriSign, Inc. (“VeriSign”) which transmits SS7 messages for Alltel. VeriSign has paid the charges billed by AT&T, and has demanded reimbursement from Alltel for all such SS7 message charges. 11. Alltel has standing to assert this Complaint because it is a person with an interest in the outcome of the Complaint. AT&T has billed VeriSign for SS7 messaging charges for Alltel calls, and VeriSign asserts that if those charges were properly assessed to VeriSign, Alltel must pay those amounts to VeriSign. Alltel seeks an order that such amounts were not properly assessed by AT&T, and requiring that AT&T refund any amounts paid by VeriSign with respect to Alltel intraMTA traffic. BACKGROUND 12. Alltel has exchanged telecommunications traffic with AT&T in the State of Michigan at all times relevant to this Complaint. The parties have operated in Michigan in accordance with interconnection agreements filed with and approved by the Commission. Most recently, on October 14, 2004 in Docket U-14300, the Commission approved a multi-state interconnection agreement that was effective upon Commission approval (the “2004 ICA”). Prior to that date the parties operated pursuant to other agreements, including an agreement dated as of October 14, 1999, between Ameritech Information Industry Services and CenturyTel Wireless, Inc. 13. The telecommunications traffic exchanged between Alltel and AT&T that is the subject of this Complaint originates and terminates in Michigan and in the same Major Trading Area, or “MTA.” 3 5369356.1 26828/113002 14. Signaling is a necessary part of the exchange of traffic between carriers because it provides the call processing and routing information. Alltel and AT&T utilize out-of-band SS7 signaling to exchange call processing and routing information. 15. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Alltel has contracted with VeriSign to transmit SS7 messages to and from AT&T and other telecommunications carriers in Michigan. VeriSign provides this service to Alltel in accordance with an agreement referred to as the “SS7 Agreement.” When a call destined to AT&T is initiated by an Alltel customer and in the reverse, VeriSign transmits the SS7 message and exchanges that SS7 information with AT&T, so that the call path is established and the call can be completed. The SS7 messages that are transmitted by VeriSign and exchanged with AT&T are referred to as “ISUP messages.” 16. The Commission has determined on several occasions that SS7 signaling is part and parcel of the delivery of traffic between carriers. In 1999 the Commission conducted an interconnection arbitration involving CenturyTel Wireless, Inc. and Thumb Cellular and Ameritech Michigan. In the matter of the application of CenturyTel Wireless, Inc. and Thumb Cellular for arbitration of interconnection agreements with Ameritech Michigan, MPSC Case No. U-11989, Opinion and Order (Sept. 14, 1999). In that decision, the Commission ordered SS7 services to be priced at Total Service Long Run Incremental Cost (“TSLRIC”) based rates because “signaling is part of interconnection and should not be viewed solely as a separate access service.” Id. at 14. See also, In the matter of the application of AirTouch Cellular, Inc. for arbitration of interconnection terms, conditions, and prices from Ameritech Michigan, MPSC Case No. U-11973, Opinion and Order (Aug. 17, 1999) (“signaling is part of interconnection”). 17. The 2004 ICA establishes a reciprocal rate for the termination of telecommunications traffic subject to 47 U.S.C. § 251(b)(5). This rate is contained in a 4 5369356.1 26828/113002 document titled “Amendment to Interconnection Agreement” that was executed at the same time as the 2004 ICA, and that provides the parties will exchange intraMTA traffic pursuant to the rate structure in the FCC’s ISP Compensation Order.1 This amendment, referred to as the “ISP Amendment,”2 caps the rate paid by the parties for terminating Section 251(b)(5) traffic at $0.0007 per minute of use. 18. The 2004 ICA (including the ISP Amendment) does not authorize AT&T to separately charge Alltel for receiving and processing ISUP messages that are necessary for the exchange of Section 251(b)(5) traffic. Instead, the 2004 ICA provides that “If SS7 services are provided by [AT&T], they will be provided in the applicable access tariffs.” This provision does not apply because access tariffs are not applicable to intraMTA wireless traffic subject to Section 251(b)(5). In addition, consistent with the ISP Compensation Order, the rate cap in the ISP Amendment prevents AT&T from recovering more than $0.0007 for intraMTA traffic by separately billing for receiving and processing ISUP messages. 19. Since August of 2003 and through the present, AT&T has billed VeriSign a per- message charge for receiving and processing ISUP messages for Section 251(b)(5) traffic originated by Alltel and terminated to AT&T. On information and belief, AT&T has issued these bills as access charges under one or more of its access tariffs. VeriSign has paid these charges and has invoiced Alltel for those charges. Alltel disputes that those charges are properly assessed by AT&T. VeriSign asserts that if the charges are properly assessed by AT&T, then Alltel is obligated to reimburse VeriSign under the terms of the SS7 Agreement. 1 In the Matter of Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-Bound Traffic, FCC 01- 131, CC Docket Nos. 96-98 (rel. April 27, 2001) (“ISP Compensation Order”).