612-877-5000 | Contact us

Extranet Login

COMMUNICATIONS

Attorneys in Moss & Barnett's Communications group collectively have more than 100 years of experience in representing the unique legal and regulatory interests of communications companies, with a concentration on rural incumbent local exchange carriers ("Rural ILECs") and competitive local exchange carriers ("CLECs").

We have provided legal, regulatory and government affairs services to our communications clients in:

  • Iowa
  • Minnesota
  • New Mexico
  • North Dakota
  • Oklahoma
  • South Dakota
  • Texas
  • Washington
  • Wisconsin
  • Before the Federal Communications ("FCC")

One of our group members also concentrates his practice in governmental matters related to cable television regulation on a national basis.

While our representation has taken many different forms, the core of our experience is in addressing:

  • Intercarrier compensation issues, negotiations and disputes
  • Unbundled network element cost cases and other matters arising under the Telecommunications Act of 1996
  • State telecommunications certifications
  • ETC certifications
  • Regulatory investigations and complaints, including earnings issues and disputes arising under the Telecommunications Act of 1996

The wide range and depth of our experience enables us to integrate specific legal, regulatory and government affairs projects into a client’s broader objectives. For example, we have:

  • Recently negotiated a traffic identification agreement with Qwest for phantom traffic terminated over Qwest access tandems
  • Provided legal support resulting in the recovery of lost access revenues from two major IXCs who were terminating unidentified traffic through third-party CLECs
  • Provided legal representation and support for CLECs in numerous unbundled network element (UNE) cost cases, wholesale service performance disputes and other proceedings arising under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (preparing filings, pleadings, testimony, cross examination, briefs and oral argument)
  • Represented CLECs in state and federal court appeals related to an array of disputes, including matters related to UNE pricing, wholesale service performance standards and Intercarrier Compensation
  • Provided direction and drafted extensive comments on behalf of a coalition of Rural ILECs in response to various access and universal service related proceedings before the FCC
  • Provided legal representation and support in numerous access "reform" proceedings (preparing filings, pleadings, testimony, cross examination, briefs, oral argument and negotiations)
  • Negotiated several dozen interconnection agreements, including agreements with CMRS providers
  • Provided legal representation and support in proceedings for intercarrier compensation in ELC and EAS circumstances
  • Represented several groups of Rural ILECs in connection with ETC applications by CMRS providers in rural telephone company service areas
  • Represented Rural ILECs in numerous rate cases, earnings investigations and proceedings to establish individual regulatory plans
  • Handled a large number of individual traffic exchange matters
  • Obtained the legal and regulatory consent for numerous sales, acquisitions and mergers of telecommunications companies

In addition to our regulatory/intercarrier negotiation experience, Moss & Barnett also provides business and corporate legal services to our telecommunications clients.

Our members and their sub-areas of expertise are:

Mike Bradley Regulatory litigation, interconnection negotiations, unbundled network element pricing, and intercarrier compensation

Mitch Cox Communications-related business transactions

Rick Kelber Communications-related business transactions

Rick Johnson Regulatory litigation and intercarrier compensation

Dan Lipschultz Regulatory litigation, interconnection negotiations, unbundled network element pricing, operational support systems, wholesale service performance standards, intercarrier compensation and legislative advocacy

Mike Nixt Communications-related business transactions

Cecilia Ray Intercarrier compensation and business transactions
Related Firm News and Articles
Jeffrey S. Waldron and Jeff Y. Lin Join Moss & Barnett
(January, 2009)

Related

News Headlines


News

Telecom

More...

Case Summaries

Public Utilities

[02/02] Eiskamp v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency
In a suit against a water management agency for declaratory relief and a writ of mandate to challenge increased groundwater augmentation charges for the operators of wells in the agency's jurisdiction, the trial court's judgment in favor of the agency on demurrer is affirmed, where a stipulated agreement in other litigation resolved the plaintiff's issue in favor of the agency, so that the present action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

[01/19] System Fuels, Inc. v. US
In a case in which the United States Court of Federal Claims determined that the United States breached a contract for the removal of spent nuclear fuel, the damages award is affirmed in part and reversed in part, where: 1) the trial court properly denied the cost of borrowed funds to construct the plaintiffs' dry fuel storage facility, as interest and interest costs incurred on money borrowed as a result of the government's breach or delay in payment are not recoverable; 2) the trial court erred in granting an offset of damages for certain overhead costs; and 3) the trial court did not err in its causation analysis and determination of the amount of nominal damages.

More...

Communications Law

[02/02] Perry v. Brown
In a case in which a district court judge granted a motion to unseal a video recording of a trial presided over by his predecessor, which recording had purportedly been prepared by the trial judge for his in-chambers use only and was later placed in the record and sealed by him, the order unsealing the recording is reversed, where: 1) the Ninth Circuit assumed for the purposes of the case that the trial recording was subject to the common-law presumption of public access; and 2) the successor judge abused his discretion because the defendants in the trial reasonably relied on the trial judge's commitments in refraining from challenging his actions, and the setting aside of those commitments would compromise the integrity of the judicial process.

[01/18] Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC
In a damages action brought in federal district court, alleging that the respondent, seeking to collect a debt, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) by repeatedly using an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded or artificial voice to call the plaintiff’s cellular phone without his consent, the dismissal of the complaint for want of subject-matter jurisdiction is reversed, as the claim arose under federal law, and the TCPA's permissive grant of jurisdiction to state courts does not deprive the US district courts of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 USC section 1331.

More...

4800 WELLS FARGO CENTER | 90 South Seventh Street | Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129
P: 612-877-5000 F: 612-877-5999 Contact us