FCC focused on AT & T’s failure (1) to initiate contact with customers to inform them that AT & T would no longer provide interexchange service and (2) to prevent customers from designating AT & T as their presubscribed interexchange carrier. The FCC concluded by determining that AT & T’s actions were “not consistent with its claimed intention to terminate MGC’s ... service,” holding that AT & T chose not to address these concerns because it did not wish to inconvenience its own customers. See id. at ¶¶ 8-9. AT & T contends MGC applies only where it is first established that the services were ordered. The relevance of MGC, however, must await the development of the factual record at trial. 22 . See, e.g., MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Dominican Comm. Corp., 984 F.Supp. 185, 191 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (<HOLDING>). 23 . Section 211 provides that “every carrier
holding that a patent is presumed valid until the contrary is shown holding that the filed rate doctrine was inapplicable because the reported data do not control the rates which defendants can charge customers as a tariff would holding that filed tariffs are presumed valid until the fcc determines otherwise and that carriers are unable to charge or receive any rate not specified in the tariff holding that when the grounds for the ruling are not specified we affirm if any of the theories advanced are meritorious recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions