******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1059
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Worldcall Interconnect, Inc.
a/k/a Evolve Broadband, 
     Complainant,
     v.
AT&T Mobility LLC,
     Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Proceeding No. 14-221
Bureau ID No. EB-14-MD-011
ORDER
Adopted:  September 21, 2016 Released: September 22, 2016
By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau:
1. On April 14, 2016, the Division issued an Interim Order
1
denying portions of the formal 
complaint by Worldcall Interconnect, Inc. (WCX) against AT&T Mobility LLC (AT&T).
2
  The Interim 
Order addressed two key disputed issues:  (a) the scope of AT&T’s obligation to offer data roaming; and 
(b) the reasonableness of AT&T’s proposed data roaming rates.  The Interim Order concluded that AT&T 
is not obligated to offer data roaming to WCX in all areas that WCX had requested, and that WCX had 
not demonstrated that AT&T’s proposed data roaming rates are commercially unreasonable.
3
  
2. The Interim Order directed the parties to resume negotiating a roaming agreement and to 
report to Commission staff on the progress of their negotiations.
4
  On August 22, 2016, the parties 
reported that they had “executed a roaming agreement, which resolves the remaining issues consistent 
with the Interim Order.”
5
  The parties indicated that they entered into a roaming agreement with the 
expectation that the rulings in the Interim Order would be included in a dispositive order to enable a party 
                                                     
1
Worldcall Interconnect v. AT&T Mobility, EB-14-MD-011, DA 16-396, Order (EB Apr. 14, 2016) (Interim Order).  
At Worldcall’s request, we also issued a letter ruling clarifying certain aspects of the Interim Order.  Worldcall 
Interconnect v. AT&T Mobility, EB-14-MD-011, Letter Order (EB June 22, 2016).   
2
WCX filed its original complaint on September 8, 2014, and filed amended complaints on October 1 and 
November 6, 2014.  See Second Amended Complaint, EB-14-MD-011 (Nov. 6, 2014).  On November 5, 2014, 
AT&T answered the October 1
st
complaint and, in doing so, anticipated amendments that WCX had agreed to 
incorporate into the Complaint that is now before us.  See Answer of AT&T Mobility, EB-14-MD-011 at 1 n.1 & 
Tab 1 (Nov. 5, 2014).  On November 21, 2014, WCX filed its reply.  See Reply of Worldcall Interconnect, Inc., EB-
14-MD-011 (Nov. 21, 2014).  On July 15, 2015, the parties also exchanged best and final offers setting forth the 
terms under which each party was willing to enter into a roaming arrangement. 
3
Interim Order at 6–15, paras. 12–28.
4
Id. at 15, para. 29. 
5
Sixth Joint Status Report, EB-14-MD-011, at 1 (Aug. 22, 2016).  The parties previously filed joint status reports on 
June 14, July 1, July 8, July 22, and July 29, 2016.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1059
2
to seek administrative reconsideration or review of those rulings.  Because it is in the public interest to 
facilitate negotiated resolution of roaming disputes and to encourage parties to enter into roaming 
agreements, we conclude that the public interest will be served by issuing this Order.  We therefore 
incorporate into this Order and adopt, in their entirety, the rulings set forth in the Interim Order.  
Accordingly, we deny WCX’s complaint as to these two issues. In light of the parties’ negotiated 
resolution of all remaining issues, we dismiss the remainder of the complaint.
3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 
208, 301, 303, 304, 309, 316, and 332 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 208, 301, 
303, 304, 309, 316, and 332, and Sections 0.111(a)(11), 0.311, 1.720-1.735, and 20.12 of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 0.111(a)(11), 0.311, 1.720-1.735, and 20.12, that WCX’s complaint is 
DENIED to the extent set forth in this Order and in the Interim Order, and is otherwise DISMISSED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Christopher Killion
Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division
Enforcement Bureau