In response to referral from U.S. Dist. Court, Kansas City, Mo., ...

them absent contractual obligation to do so. In order released Fri., FCC said that until court decided whether there was contract, it was premature to decide court’s 2nd question of reasonableness of rate charged. Agency said any changes to its rules would come up as it considered pending Intercarrier Compensation proceeding (CC Doc. 01-92). Issue arose in 1998 when Sprint PCS began sending invoices to AT&T asking that latter compensate it for costs of terminating long distance traffic bound for Sprint PCS’s wireless customers. Case is Sprint Spectrum v. AT&T. FCC said Sprint PCS charged AT&T 2.8 cents per min., rate included in NECA (National Exchange Carrier Assn.) tariff, and AT&T refused to pay. As of Sept. 1, amount in dispute exceeded $60 million. Sprint filed suit in state court in Mo. and AT&T requested that it be moved to federal Dist. Court. FCC ruled that: “Sprint PCS is correct that neither the Communications Act nor any Commission rule prohibits a CMRS carrier from attempting to collect access charges from an interexchange carrier… In a detariffed, deregulated environment such as this one, carriers are free to arrange whatever compensation arrangements they like for the exchange of traffic… That Sprint PCS may seek to collect access charges from AT&T does not, however, resolve the question whether Sprint PCS may unilaterally impose such charges on AT&T… We find that there is no Commission rule that enables Sprint PCS unilaterally to impose access charges on AT&T… We disagree with Sprint PCS that the forbearance policy adopted in the CMRS Second Report and Order enables Sprint PCS to impose unilaterally whatever rate it wishes, subject only to AT&T’s right to file a complaint.”