Application for Approval of an Amendment        )

to the Traffic Termination Agreement with         )         File No. IK-2013-0251

Verizon Wireless                                             )





Issue Date:  November 26, 2012                         Effective Date:  December 6, 2012



This order approves the amendments to the traffic termination agreement between the parties filed by Kingdom Telephone Company (Kingdom).

On October 31, 2012, Kingdom filed an application with the Commission for approval of amendments to its traffic termination agreement with Verizon Wireless (Verizon).  Kingdom and Verizon currently have a Commission-approved traffic termination agreement between them.  In the current application, the parties have agreed to amend the traffic termination agree­ment.  The amendments were filed pursuant to Section 252(e)(1) of the Telecommunica­tions Act of 1996.[1]  The amendments would establish bill-and-keep as the compensation arrangement for IntraMTA traffic exchanged between the parties.  Verizon holds a certificate of service authority to provide basic local exchange telecommunications services in Missouri.  Verizon is a wireless communications company not regulated by the Commission.

Although Verizon is a party to the agreement, it did not join in the application.  On November 5, 2012, the Commission issued an order making Verizon a party in this case and directing any party wishing to request a hearing to do so no later than November 15, 2012.

Under Section 252(e) of the Act, any interconnection agreement adopted by negotiation must be submitted to the Commission for approval.  The Commission may reject an agreement if it finds that the agreement is discriminatory or that it is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.

On November 6, 2012, the Staff of the Commission filed a memorandum and recom­mendation.  The Staff memorandum recommends that the amendments to the agreement be approved and notes that the agreement meets the limited requirements of the Act in that it is not discriminatory toward nonparties and is not against the public interest.  Staff recom­mends that the Commission direct the parties to submit any further amendments to the Commission for approval.

Findings of Fact

The Commission has considered the application, the supporting documentation, and Staff's verified recommendation.  Based upon that review, the Commission finds that the agreement as amended meets the requirements of the Act in that it does not discriminate against a nonparty carrier and implementation of the agreement as amended is not inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.  The Commission finds that approval of the agree­ment as amended shall be conditioned upon the parties submitting any further amendments to the Commission for approval pursuant to the procedure set out below.

Amendment Procedure

The Commission has a duty to review all interconnection agreements, whether arrived at through negotiation or arbitration, as mandated by the Act.[2]  In order for the Commission's role of review and approval to be effective, the Commission must also review and approve or recognize amendments to these agreements.  The Commission has a further duty to make a copy of every interconnection agreement available for public inspection.[3]  This duty is in keeping with the Commission's practice under its own rules of requiring telecommunica­tions companies to keep their rate schedules on file with the Commission.[4]

The parties to each interconnection agreement must maintain a complete and current copy of the agreement, together with all amendments, in the Commission's offices.  Any proposed amendment must be submitted pursuant to Commis­sion rule 4 CSR 240‑3.513(6).

Conclusions of Law

The Commission, under the provisions of Section 252(e)(1) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996,[5] is required to review negotiated interconnection agreements.  It may only reject a negotiated agreement upon a finding that its implementa­tion would be discriminatory to a nonparty or inconsistent with the public interest, conven­ience and necessity.[6]  Based upon its review of the amendments to the agreement between Kingdom and Verizon and its findings of fact, the Commission concludes that the agreement as amended is neither discriminatory nor inconsistent with the public interest and shall be approved.

The Commission notes that prior to providing telecommunications services in Missouri, a party shall possess the following:  (1) an interconnection agreement approved by the Commission; (2) except for wireless providers, a certificate of service authority from the Commission to provide interexchange or basic local telecommunications services; and (3) except for wireless providers, a tariff approved by the Commission.


1.          The amendments to the traffic termination agreement between Kingdom Telephone Company and Verizon Wireless, filed on October 31, 2012, are approved.

2.          Any changes or amendments to this agreement shall be submitted in compliance with 4 CSR 240‑3.513(6).

3.          This order shall become effective on December 6, 2012.

4.          This file may be closed on December 7, 2012.







Steven C. Reed



( S E A L )


Harold Stearley, Deputy Chief Regulatory

Law Judge, by delegation of authority

pursuant to Section 386.240, RSMo 2000.


Dated at Jefferson City, Missouri,

on this 26th day of November, 2012.

[1] See 47 U.S.C. § 251, et seq.

[2] 47 U.S.C. § 252.

[3] 47 U.S.C. § 252(h).

[4] 4 CSR 240‑3.545.

[5] 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(1).

[6] 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(2)(A).