Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      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 18-90
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Express Scripts, Inc.,
Complainant, 
v. 
AT&T Corp.,     
Defendant.  
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Proceeding Number 16-407
 
Bureau ID Number EB-16-MD-005 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: January 31, 2018 Released:  January 31, 2018
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny a formal complaint filed by Express 
Scripts, Inc. (ESI) against AT&T Corp. (AT&T).
1
  In its Complaint, ESI alleges that AT&T, which 
provides interstate telecommunications services to ESI, violated Commission rule 54.712(a) and Section 
201(b) of the Act
2
 by failing to apply certain credits to ESI’s interstate telecommunications charges 
before calculating a Universal Service Fund (USF) pass-through charge on ESI’s bills.  As discussed 
below, we find that AT&T’s calculation of ESI’s USF pass-through charge did not violate either 
Commission rule 54.712(a) or Section 201(b) of the Act.
II.  BACKGROUND
A.  Legal Background
2.  The Commission established the USF in accordance with Section 254(b) of the Act to 
“ensur[e] the delivery of affordable telecommunications services to all Americans, including consumers 
in high-cost areas, low-income consumers, eligible schools and libraries, and rural health care 
providers.”
3
  The USF is funded by contributions from providers of interstate and international 
1
 Complaint, Proceeding No. 16-407, Bureau ID No. EB-16-MD-005 (filed Dec. 13, 2016) (“Complaint”).  ESI filed 
the complaint pursuant to Section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), 47 U.S.C. § 208.
2
 47 C.F.R. § 54.712(a); 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). 
3
 See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 24952 (2002) (subsequent history omitted) (“USF Contribution Methodology Order”) at 
24957, para. 7. 
Federal Communications Commission   DA 18-90 
2
telecommunications, such as AT&T, who must pay a specified percentage (called the “contribution 
factor”) of their “projected collected interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues, 
net of projected contributions.”
4
  The Commission sets the amount of the contribution factor every 
quarter.
5
3. Soon after the USF was established, the Commission concluded that providers should be 
allowed “to decide for themselves whether, how, and how much of their universal service contributions to 
recover from their customers.”
6
  As a result, many carriers chose to pass-through their USF contributions 
via a separate line-item charge on their customers’ bills.
7
  In the 2002 USF Contribution Methodology 
Order, the Commission addressed concerns about the way carriers calculated these USF line-item charges 
on customer bills.
8
  The Commission noted that, “[a]lthough the contribution factor is uniform for all 
[carriers], universal service line items [on customers’ bills] currently vary widely among carriers, and 
often significantly exceed the amount of the [C]ontribution [F]actor.”
9
  The Commission adopted rule 
54.712(a) to ensure that “the amount of a carrier’s federal universal service line item will not exceed the 
relevant interstate telecommunications portion of the [customer’s] bill times the relevant contribution 
factor.”
10
  Rule 54.712(a) states:   
Federal universal service contribution costs may be recovered through interstate 
telecommunications-related charges to end-users.  If a contributor chooses to recover its federal 
universal service contribution costs through a line item on a customer's bill the amount of the 
federal universal service line-item charge may not exceed the interstate telecommunications 
portion of that customer's bill times the relevant contribution factor.
11
 
4
 47 C.F.R § 54.706(b).  See USF Contribution Methodology Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 24954, paras. 1-2. 
5
 See “Contribution Methodology & Administrative Filings” at https://www.fcc.gov/general/contribution-
methodology-administative-filings. 
6
 USF Contribution Methodology Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 24958, para. 10 (citing Federal-State Joint Board on 
Universal Service, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776 (1997) (subsequent history omitted) (1997 USF Order) at 
9211, para. 853).  The Commission warned, however, that “carriers may not shift more than an equitable share of 
their contributions to any customer or group of customers,” 1997 USF Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9199, para. 829, and 
must indicate on their bills that the carrier “has chosen to pass through the contribution or part of the contribution to 
its customers” and “include complete and truthful information regarding the contribution amount.”  Id. at 9211, para. 
855. 
7
 See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 9892, 9894, 
para. 4 (2001). 
8
 USF Contribution Methodology Order, 17 FCC Rcd at e.g., 24955, 24976-983, paras. 2, 45-63. 
9
 USF Contribution Methodology Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 24976, para. 46. 
10
 USF Contribution Methodology Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 24978, para. 50 and Appendix A; 47 C.F.R § 54.712(a).  
Thus, to use an example from that Order, if the interstate telecommunications charges on a customer’s bill total 
$100, and the contribution factor is 7.28%, the customer’s line-item charge for the USF pass-through may not 
exceed $7.28.  See id. at 24979, para. 51 (“if the contribution factor is 7.28 percent, a carrier’s federal universal 
service line-item cannot exceed 7.28 percent of the total amount of the interstate portion of charges for 
telecommunications service…”).      
11
 47 C.F.R. § 54.712(a).   The language quoted above is the current text of rule 54.712(a).  As the Commission 
noted in the USF Contribution Methodology Order, Section 201(b) of the Act is also part of the statutory framework 
governing the recovery of universal service contributions by telecommunications carriers.  17 FCC Rcd at 24974, 
para. 41.  Section 201(b) states: “All charges [and] practices…for and in connection with [interstate or foreign 
communication by wire or radio] service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge [or] practice…that is 
unjust and unreasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful….”  47 U.S.C. § 201(b).
Federal Communications Commission   DA 18-90 
3
B.  Factual Background  
4. Complainant ESI describes itself as “the nation’s largest stand-alone full-service pharmacy 
benefit management company, handling more than one million prescriptions every day through its 
network of retail pharmacies and home delivery facilities.”
12
  Defendant AT&T is a common carrier 
engaged in interstate and foreign communications subject to Title II of the Act.
13
5. ESI purchased telecommunications and information services from AT&T under an 
Agreement executed in 2007 (Agreement).
14
  The Agreement entitled ESI to a number of credits, 
including an “Attainment Credit,” which was based on ESI’s total annual spending not only on interstate 
telecommunications, but also on intrastate telecommunications, information, and other AT&T services.
15
6. The Agreement stated that ESI “may designate up to 250 bill groups” and that “[a]ll charges 
for the billing components associated with a bill group will be identified with that bill group for billing 
and reporting purposes.”
16
  The Agreement specified that the Attainment Credit was “to be applied to a 
single bill group.”
17
  In accordance with these provisions, ESI requested that AT&T establish 
approximately fifty bill groups, each of which generally corresponded to a physical location where ESI 
used AT&T services.
18
  In addition, ESI directed AT&T to create a separate, stand-alone bill group 
comprised solely of the Attainment Credit and containing no usage charges whatsoever (the Credit Bill 
Group).
19
  ESI never asked AT&T to assign the Attainment Credit to a different bill group.
20
  
7.   The Agreement gave ESI the option to have a separate monthly invoice for each bill group 
sent to and paid by an employee at the address for that bill group.  Alternatively, the Agreement gave ESI 
the option to have a single monthly invoice including all the bill groups sent to and paid by an employee 
12
 Complaint at 1, para. 2.
13
 Joint Statement of the Parties, Proceeding No. 16-407, Bureau ID No. EB-16-MD-005 (filed Mar. 2, 2017) (“Jt. 
Statement”) at 2, para. 2.
14
 Jt. Statement at 3, para. 6.  The Agreement was amended and restated in 2011.  Id.  The Agreement consisted of a 
Master Services Agreement (“MSA”), Pricing Schedules, and the AT&T Business Service Guides pertaining to each 
Pricing Schedule.  See Jt. Statement at 3, para. 6, 4, para. 8; AT&T’s Answer to ESI’s Formal Complaint, 
Proceeding No. 16-407, Bureau ID No. EB-16-MD-005 (filed Jan. 27, 2017) (“Answer”), Bereyso Dec’n Ex. 1 
(2007 MSA) at 1 section 1.1, Ex. 4 (2011 MSA) at 2, 8.  The Agreement allowed AT&T to impose a line-item 
charge for the USF pass-through.  Jt. Statement at 9, para. 20; Answer, Bereyso Dec’n Ex. 4 (2011 MSA) at 30, § 
5.1.  
15
 Jt. Statement at 3, para. 7, 9, para. 19 and n.9; Answer, Legal Analysis at 30; Reply at 19. para. 39 (“AT&T is 
correct that the MSA allows ESI to earn credits . . . by purchasing both telecommunications and non- 
telecommunications services from AT&T.”).  AT&T did not award the Attainment Credit as a lump sum; rather, 
part of the annual credit was reflected in the invoices AT&T issued in December, March, June and September of 
each year.  Answer, Bereyso Dec’n at 3-4, para. 10.  
16
 Jt. Statement at 4, para. 8; Answer, Bereyso Dec’n Ex. 2 (Service Guide) at 195-196, SD 11.5.1.  ESI refers to the 
bill groups as “sub-accounts.”  E.g., Complaint at 6, para. 18. For ease of reference, we use the term, “bill group.”
17
 Jt. Statement at 9, para. 19; Answer, Bereyso Dec’n Ex. 5 (Pricing Schedule) at e.g., 13. 
18
 Jt. Statement at 4, para. 8. 
19
 Jt. Statement at 9, para. 19.  The account number for this bill group ends in “CRD.”  See Jt. Statement Attachment 
(Monthly Invoice sample pages) at bates no. 31 (page for bill group H6 398650 CRD).  For ease of reference we 
refer to it here as “the Credit Bill Group.”  The record does not establish why ESI chose to place the Attainment 
Credit in a stand-alone bill group.  
20
 Jt. Statement at 9, para. 19.
Federal Communications Commission   DA 18-90 
4
at a single ESI location.  ESI chose the latter option.
21
  
8.
  
The invoices AT&T sent to ESI (Monthly Invoices) had three main parts.
22
  The largest part, 
which we call here the Bill Group Portion, spanned thousands of pages.
23
  The Bill Group Portion was 
broken down into the fifty bill groups selected by ESI (that is, the fifty bill group locations), and 
calculated, separately for each bill group, the amount due for that bill group.  Thus, the Bill Group Portion 
displayed, for each bill group: the bill group’s address and account number; a detailed calculation of the 
telecommunications and information service charges, regulatory fees, federal, state and local taxes,
 
and 
any credits and discounts associated with that bill group; and the total amount due for the bill group.
24
 The 
Bill Group Portion also included the Credit Bill Group which, per ESI’s instruction, was comprised solely 
of the Attainment Credit and contained no interstate or other usage charges whatsoever.
25
 
9.   Because the Credit Bill Group contained no interstate charges, AT&T did not calculate a 
USF pass-through charge for that bill group.
26
  If one of the other bill groups had interstate 
telecommunications charges, the pages for that bill group showed a line-item for the USF pass-through 
charge.
27
  AT&T calculated the USF pass-through by multiplying the bill group’s interstate charges 
(which had already been reduced by any discounts or credits included in that bill group) by the 
contribution factor.
28
  AT&T did not apply the Attainment Credit to reduce the interstate charges in these 
other bill groups (to which the Attainment Credit was not assigned) before calculating the USF charges 
for those bill groups.
29
10. The second part of the Monthly Invoice, called the “Summary of Accounts,” comprised only 
a few pages.  As the name suggests, it summarized the billing data from the Bill Group Portion by 
displaying the total amount due for each bill group.
30
  For the Credit Bill Group, the Summary of 
Accounts displayed the amount of the Attainment Credit.
31
  The Summary of Accounts did not separately 
21
 Jt. Statement at 4-5, paras. 8-11, 8, para. 18, and Attachment (Monthly Invoice sample pages); Answer, Bereyso 
Dec’n Ex. 2 (Service Guide) at 195-96, para. SD-11.5.1 (“Invoices may be issued at the bill group level (a 
separate…Invoice for a single bill group) and/or at the summary level (a separate … Invoice for a combination of 
two or more bill groups)”); Answer, Bereyso Dec’n Ex. 2 (Service Guide) at 195-96, para. SD-11.5.1.  See Answer, 
Veverka Dec’n at 2, para. 6.
22
 Jt. Statement at 5-6, paras. 11-14.
23
 Jt. Statement at 6-7, paras. 13-14, 8, para. 18, Attachment (Monthly Invoice sample pages); Complaint at 6, para. 
18.
24
 Jt. Statement at 4, para. 8, 6-7, paras. 13-15, 8, para. 18, 11-12, paras. 23-25, Attachment (Monthly Invoice 
sample pages) at bates nos. 9-32; Complaint, Gardner Dec’n at 3, para. 6, 4, paras. 8-10.
25
 Jt. Statement at 9, para. 19.
26
 Jt. Statement at 9, para. 19, 12, para. 25; See Answer, Veverka Dec’n at 3-4, para. 10. 
27
 Jt. Statement at 11, paras. 23-24, Attachment (Monthly Invoice sample pages) at bates no. 15; Complaint at 6-7, 
paras. 19-20.   The Monthly Invoice refers to the USF pass-through as the “Universal Connectivity Charge.”  Jt. 
Statement at 8 n.8, 11, para. 24.
28
 Jt. Statement at 11-12, para. 24. See Answer, Veverka Dec’n at 2, para. 5, 3, para. 9.
29
 Complaint at 6-7, paras. 19-20, Gardner Dec’n at 4, paras. 8-9; Answer, Legal Analysis at 11-13; Reply at 3, para. 
5.
30
 Jt. Statement at 6-7, paras. 13-14, Attachment (Monthly Invoice sample pages) at bates nos. 5-7.  ESI’s assertion 
that AT&T calculated taxes and fees at the Summary of Accounts level, Complaint, Gardner Dec’n at 5, para. 11, is 
not supported by the record. See Jt. Statement Attachment at bates nos. 5 and 28.
31
 Jt. Statement at 9, para. 19, Attachment (Monthly Invoice sample pages) at bates nos. 28-32.  The pages of the Bill 
Group Portion and the Summary of Accounts had separate columns for “Monthly Charges,” “One-Time and Partial 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission   DA 18-90 
5
list, or contain a line-item for, the USF charge for any bill group.
32
  The last page of the Summary of 
Accounts showed a “grand total,” which was the sum total of the amounts due for all the bill groups, with 
the Attainment Credit treated as a negative number.
33
  (In effect, then, the Summary of Accounts 
subtracted the Attainment Credit from the sum total of the other bill groups to determine the “grand 
total.”)  The third part of the Monthly Invoice was a one-page “Remittance Amount” which stated the 
“Total Payable Upon Receipt.”
34
  This amount matched the “grand total” on the last page of the Summary 
of Accounts.
35
 
III. DISCUSSION
11. In its Complaint, ESI alleges that AT&T “inflated” ESI’s USF pass-through charges by 
failing to reduce ESI’s interstate charges by the Attainment Credit before multiplying those charges by 
the contribution factor.
36
  ESI states, “The flaw in AT&T’s [billing] system is that it…multiplies the 
relevant USF contribution factor times [interstate telecommunications service] dollar charges at the [bill 
group] level on ESI’s bill, which is before the system applies the [Attainment] credits that [should] reduce 
those [interstate] charges.”
37
  ESI maintains that AT&T therefore violated Commission rule 54.712 and 
Section 201(b) of the Act.
38
12. To support this contention, ESI turns to the language of the Agreement, arguing that its terms 
required AT&T to reduce ESI’s interstate charges by the Attainment Credit before calculating the USF 
pass-through charge.
39
  ESI notes that the Agreement defines “Rates and Charges” as “the rates and 
charges (including discounts and credits) for the Services,” and provides that, “The Regulatory Charges 
[such as the USF pass-through charge] are in addition to the Rates and Charges.”
40
  ESI maintains that, 
“[b]y including credits in Rates and Charges and defining Regulatory Charges as fees ‘in addition to’ 
(...continued from previous page)
Charges/Credits,” “Usage Charges,” and “Taxes and Fees.”  Jt. Statement at 7, para. 14, Attachment (Monthly 
Invoice sample pages) at e.g., bates nos. 5 and 10.  Totals from columns on bill group pages were transferred to the 
Summary of Accounts columns.  See e.g., Jt. Statement Attachment at bates nos. 5, 25.             
32
 Jt. Statement at 7, para. 15.  The USF pass-through charge for each bill group was combined with the non-USF 
charges and credits for that bill group under a column on the Summary of Accounts labeled, “One-Time and Partial 
Charges/Credits.”  Id. at 7-8, para. 15.
33
 Jt. Statement at 7, para. 14, Attachment (Monthly Invoice sample pages) at bates no.7.
34
 Jt. Statement at 7, para. 14, 8, para. 16, Attachment (Monthly Invoice sample pages) at bates no. 2.
35
 Jt. Statement at 7, para. 14, 8, para. 16, Attachment (Monthly Invoice sample pages) at bates nos. 2,7.
36
 See Complaint at 4, para. 9.  For example, if ESI’s interstate charges were $100; the Attainment Credit was $50 
and the contribution factor was 18%, then, according to ESI, AT&T should have subtracted the $50 Attainment 
Credit from the $100 in interstate charges, and then multiplied the difference ($50) by 18%, so that ESI would owe 
$9 in USF pass-through charges.  Instead, however, under the same example, AT&T multiplied $100 of interstate 
charges by 18%, so that ESI owed $18 in USF pass-through charges.  See Complaint at 7, para. 20.  ESI contends 
that, alternatively, AT&T should have adjusted the Monthly Invoices at the Summary of Accounts level to 
“recapture[]” the amount by which the USF charges were allegedly overstated. Gardner Dec’n at 5, para. 11.
37
 Complaint at 6, para. 19 (emphasis in original).
38
 ESI does not allege that AT&T multiplied ESI’s interstate charges by an incorrect contribution factor. ESI also 
does not allege that AT&T profited from ESI’s USF pass-through charges by collecting more in such charges than it 
contributed to the Universal Service Fund.
39
 Complaint at 9, para. 25; Reply at 4-6, paras. 7-11.  
40
  Reply at 4-5, paras. 7-8 (citing Answer, Bereyso Dec’n at Ex. 4 (2011 MSA) at 7, 8).  See Jt. Statement at 10, 
paras. 21, 22; Answer, Bereyso Dec’n Ex. 4 (2011 MSA) at 7, §1.1; 30, §5.1.
Federal Communications Commission   DA 18-90 
6
Rates and Charges, the [Agreement] requires AT&T to include the [Attainment] credits in its Rates and 
Charges which, as a matter of simple mathematics, requires Rates and Charges to be reduced before they 
can be used as a building block for the calculation of any Regulatory Charges.”
41
      
13. While we agree that the question of whether AT&T violated rule 54.712(a) or Section 201(b) 
is informed by the terms of the Agreement, ESI’s selective citation of  the Agreement’s terms is 
unpersuasive because it ignores the principle that a contract must be read as a whole.
42
  ESI ignores 
language in the Agreement stating that ESI “may designate up to 250 bill groups” and that the Attainment 
Credit must “be applied to a single bill group.”
43
  ESI also overlooks language establishing that all 
charges pertaining to a particular bill group – including therefore, the USF charge – would be separately 
and independently calculated for that bill group.  Specifically, the Agreement stated that “[a]ll charges for 
the billing components associated with a bill group will be identified with that bill group for billing and 
reporting purposes.”
44
  These provisions make clear that the Agreement did not require AT&T to apply 
the Attainment Credit before calculating ESI’s USF charge.  The USF charge was calculated separately 
for each bill group; yet the Attainment Credit could only apply to one bill group, and could not be divided 
and applied to multiple bill groups.  Therefore, the Attainment Credit could reduce ESI’s interstate 
telecommunications charges before those charges were multiplied by the contribution factor only if the 
credit were placed in a bill group containing interstate charges, and could not reduce interstate charges in 
other bill groups.
45
    
14. Thus, ESI’s reliance on selected language of the Agreement is unavailing.  ESI asked AT&T 
to apply the Attainment Credit to a separate, stand-alone bill group that contained no interstate charges 
against which the credit could be applied.  ESI never revoked that request.
46
  As a result, ESI’s interstate 
41
 Reply at 5, para. 8.    
42
 See 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 374 (May 2017 Update) (“all clauses and provisions of a contract should, if 
possible, be so construed as to harmonize with one another….”).  Missouri law, which appears to govern, Answer, 
Bereyso Dec’n Ex. 4 (2011 MSA) at 72, § 17.16 (“The Agreement…shall be governed by the substantive law 
of…Missouri”), is in accord.  See State ex rel. Pinkerton v. Fahnestock , 531 S.W.3d 36, 44 (Mo. banc 2017) (“Each 
clause [of a contract] ‘must be read in the context of the entire contract’”) (citations omitted); Storey v. RGIS 
Inventory Specialists, LLC, 466 S.W.3d 650, 654 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (in construing a contract, court must 
“consider the document as a whole” and “harmonize all provisions”) (citing Nodaway Valley v. E.L. Crawford 
Const., Inc., 126 S.W.3d 820, 825 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). 
43
 Jt. Statement at 4, para. 8; Answer, Bereyso Dec’n, Ex. 2 (Service Guide) at 195, para. SD-11.5.1.
44
 Id.  That charges and regulatory fees such as the USF pass-through were calculated separately for each bill group 
is further demonstrated by the fact that, had ESI so chosen, a separate invoice for each bill group could have been 
sent to and paid by the location to which that bill group pertained.  The Agreement stated that “invoices may be 
issued at the bill group level (a separate invoice . . . for a single bill group).”  Further, summary level invoices, such 
as the Monthly Invoices ESI chose to receive, were described by the Agreement as just a “combination of . . . bill 
groups.” Jt. Statement at 4, para. 9; Answer, Bereyso Dec’n Ex.2 (Service Guide) at 195-96, para. SD-11.5.1.
45
  ESI has misconstrued the language on which it relies.  ESI mistakenly reads the Agreement’s statement that “The 
Regulatory Charges are in addition to the Rates and Charges” to mean that Regulatory Charges are calculated after 
the Rates and Charges.  The phrase “in addition to” simply means that ESI must pay the Regulatory Charges “in 
addition to” the Rates and Charges.  The context in which the language is found makes this clear: “ESI shall pay 
for…use of the Services at the Rates and Charges….  [AT&T] may adjust or impose additional charges on ESI to 
recover amounts [AT&T] is required by regulatory or other governmental authorities to collect on behalf of or pay 
to governmental authorities…. The Regulatory Charges are in addition to the Rates and Charges.” Answer, Bereyso 
Dec’n Ex. 4 (2011 MSA) at 30, §5.1(a), (b), (c).  Further, we are not convinced that the Agreement’s definition of 
“Rates and Charges” delineates how any particular credit is to be applied to any particular charge.       
46
 ESI could have minimized its USF line-item charges by placing all its interstate telecommunications charges into 
a single bill group, and then instructed AT&T to place the Attainment Credit in that bill group.  Answer, Legal 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission   DA 18-90 
7
telecommunications charges were not reduced by the Attainment Credit before they were multiplied by 
the contribution factor.  Indeed, ESI does not explain how AT&T could, on one hand, comply with ESI’s 
request, made pursuant to the Agreement, that AT&T apply the Attainment Credit to a separate bill group 
containing no usage charges and, on the other hand, reduce ESI’s interstate telecommunications charges 
by the Attainment Credit before calculating the USF pass-through.  For these reasons, ESI’s contractual 
argument must fail. 
15. We also reject ESI’s attempt to support its claim that AT&T violated rule 54.712(a) by 
asserting that the Summary of Accounts portion of the Monthly Invoice was the “interstate 
telecommunications portion of [ESI’s] bill” within the meaning of rule 54.712(a).  ESI notes that the 
Summary of Accounts included the Attainment Credit, and reasons that AT&T should therefore have 
reduced any USF pass-through charges to reflect the Attainment Credit.
 47
  We disagree with ESI’s 
reasoning.  The “Summary of Accounts” was not the “interstate telecommunications portion” of ESI’s 
bill.  The Summary merely listed the totals due for each of the bill groups (with the Attainment Credit 
treated as a negative number). It did not separately list ESI’s interstate telecommunications charges or 
contain a line-item for the USF pass-through.
48
  In contrast, as provided in the Agreement, the bill groups 
set forth separately, for each bill group, any telecommunications charges, regulatory fees, federal, state 
and local taxes, credits, discounts, and other billing information pertaining to that bill group.  If a 
particular bill group had interstate telecommunications charges, the pages for that bill group also 
contained a line-item for the USF charge.
49
  
16. Thus, those individual bill groups that contained interstate telecommunications charges—not 
the Summary of Accounts—were the “interstate telecommunications portion of [ESI’s] bill” containing 
the “federal universal service line-item charge” within the meaning of rule 54.712(a).  Because, under the 
Agreement, the Attainment Credit could apply only to one bill group, and ESI directed that it be applied 
to its own stand-alone bill group, the credit did not reduce the interstate charges contained in the other bill 
groups before those charges were multiplied by the contribution factor.  Accordingly, AT&T’s calculation 
of ESI’s USF charges was in accordance with rule 54.712(a), because the charges did not “exceed the 
interstate telecommunications portion of [ESI’s] bill” – that is, the interstate telecommunications charges 
found in the individual bill groups – “times the relevant contribution factor.”  
17. ESI argues in the alternative that AT&T violated rule 54.712(a) and Section 201(b) even if 
the Agreement allowed AT&T to calculate ESI’s USF charge without first applying the Attainment Credit 
to ESI’s interstate charges, and even if the Summary of Accounts was not the “interstate 
telecommunications portion of [ESI’s] bill” within the meaning of rule 54.712(a).  According to ESI, “the 
Commission does not have to reach any conclusions about the [Agreement] or AT&T’s invoicing format 
in order to conclude that AT&T’s USF pass-through charge violates the rule” because rule 54.712(a) and 
Section 201(b) “impose[ ] independent compliance duties on AT&T that it cannot contract away.”
50
 
(...continued from previous page)
Analysis at 13.
47
 See Complaint at 6, para. 19, 8, para. 22 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 54.712(a). 
48
 Jt. Statement at 7, para. 15.  See Jt. Statement Attachment (Monthly Invoice sample pages) at bates nos. 5-7. 
49
 ESI’s Monthly Invoices, including its Summary of Accounts and Bill Group Portion, were issued in accordance 
with the Agreement.  As discussed, the Agreement required that the Attainment Credit “be applied to a single bill 
group,” and established that each bill group represented a complete calculation and display of all charges, including 
the USF charge, pertaining to that bill group.  The Agreement stated, “[a]ll charges for the billing components 
associated with a bill group will be identified with that bill group for billing and reporting purposes.” 
50
 Reply at 6, para. 9.  See Reply at 3, para. 5 (“Neither AT&T’s [bill group] system nor ESI’s separate [bill group] 
for [the Attainment] credit prevented AT&T from including the [Attainment] credits to compute the actual 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission   DA 18-90 
8
18. This conclusory argument also fails.  The only “compliance duty” imposed upon AT&T by 
rule 54.712 is not to assess a USF charge that “exceed[ed] the interstate telecommunications portion of 
[ESI's] bill times the relevant contribution factor.”  AT&T complied with that duty, because it calculated 
ESI’s USF charges by multiplying the “interstate telecommunications portion of [ESI’s] bill” – which, as 
discussed, was the portion of any bill group containing interstate telecommunications charges
51
 -- by “the 
relevant contribution factor.”  ESI seems to assume that rule 54.712(a) regulates the way in which credits 
are applied, and therefore required AT&T to apply the Attainment Credit to ESI’s interstate charges.  But 
ESI cites no language in rule 54.712(a) or the order promulgating it that purports to do so, and we are 
aware of none. ESI also fails to meet its burden of proving that AT&T violated Section 201(b).
52
  We do 
not believe it was unjust or unreasonable within the meaning of Section 201(b) for AT&T to agree with 
ESI, a large business customer, that the Attainment Credit would apply only to one bill group (of ESI’s 
choosing), and would reduce ESI’s interstate telecommunications charges prior to calculation of the USF 
charge only if ESI assigned the credit to a bill group containing interstate charges.
53
19. Finally, ESI argues that, because the Attainment Credit reduced the sum total of the amounts 
due for all the bill groups, it effectively reduced ESI’s interstate charges, and, therefore, ESI’s USF 
charges also should have been reduced.  ESI states that AT&T “should have “adjust[ed] down the USF 
pass-through charge to reflect the shrinkage in the base amount [i.e., the interstate charges] caused by the 
[Attainment] credits.”
54
  We find no merit in this argument.  ESI cites no language from Commission 
rules or orders imposing such an obligation on AT&T.  Moreover, ESI’s argument is inconsistent with the 
terms of the Agreement.  As discussed, under the Agreement, the USF pass-through charge was 
calculated at the bill group level, and the Attainment Credit could apply only to one bill group.  
Therefore, even if the Attainment Credit indirectly reduced ESI’s interstate charges by reducing ESI’s 
total charge, the credit could reduce ESI’s interstate charges for the purpose of calculating the USF 
charge only if the credit were applied to a bill group containing interstate charges.
20. In sum, ESI, a large, sophisticated business enterprise, asked AT&T to place the Attainment 
Credit in a stand-alone bill group containing no interstate charges.  AT&T’s calculation of ESI’s USF 
(...continued from previous page)
‘interstate telecommunications portion,’ as Section 54.712(a) refers to it, of ESI’s bill as part of calculating a USF 
pass-through charge.  Applying the [Attainment Credit] to reduce ESI’s charges is what…the FCC rule 
provides…”).  
51
 See paras. 15-16, supra.
52
 We assume without deciding that AT&T could violate Section 201(b) even though it did not violate rule 
54.712(a). 
53
 ESI states that AT&T’s bills were “complex”.  Complaint at 6, para. 18.  But ESI is a large, sophisticated 
company, and requested that the Attainment Credit be placed in a bill group containing no usage charges.  
Moreover, the Summary of Accounts, which was only a few pages long, made clear that A&T was applying the 
Attainment Credit to reduce the sum total of all the bill groups: The Summary of Accounts listed the total amount 
due for each bill group, and then showed the grand total of all the bill groups, treating the Attainment Credit as a 
negative number.  It stands to reason that, if AT&T was applying the Attainment Credit to reduce the total of all the 
bill groups, it was not also applying the Attainment Credit to reduce ESI’s interstate charges before calculating the 
USF charge, because AT&T would not have applied the same credit twice. 
54
 Complaint, Gardner Dec’n, at 5, para. 12.  See id. at 9, para. 20; Reply at 8 n.19 (“[The Attainment Credit] does in 
fact offset the charges from the…bill groups because AT&T applies it to reduce the total amount due on the 
Summary of Accounts page.”). Similarly, ESI argues, without citing language in the Agreement, that AT&T should 
have “subtracted from the final amount due…the dollar value of the [Attainment] credits times the relevant USF 
[C]ontribution [F]actor.” Complaint, Gardner Dec’n at 5, para. 11.
Federal Communications Commission   DA 18-90 
9
charges in accordance with that request did not violate rule 54.712(a) or Section 201(b).
55
IV. ORDERDING CLAUSE
21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 201 of the Act, 47 
U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 201, and Commission rules 0.111, 0.311, 1.711-1.736 and 54.712, 47 
C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311,1.711-1.736, and 54.712, that the Complaint is DENIED and this proceeding is 
TERMINATED. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Rosemary C. Harold
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
55
 AT&T asserts as an affirmative defense that the Agreement requires the parties to arbitrate their dispute.  Answer 
at 9, para. 28.  But the Agreement’s arbitration provisions are permissive rather than mandatory.  See Jt. Statement at 
12, para. 17 (citing the 2011 MSA at §17.7(a) (“the aggrieved Party may refer the Dispute to binding 
arbitration…”)) (emphasis added).  In addition, the Agreement provides that arbitration “shall not apply to Disputes 
relating to: …the lawfulness of rates, terms, conditions or practices concerning Services that are subject to the [Act], 
or the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission…”.  Reply at 11, para. 20 (citing 2011 
MSA at §17.7(c)); Jt. Statement at 13, para. 28 (same).  ESI’s Complaint falls within this carve-out because it 
“relate[s] to” AT&T’s “practices concerning” its provision of interstate services (i.e., calculation of the USF pass-
through), and “relate[s] to” the rules and regulations of this Commission (i.e., rule 54.712(a)).