of the other carrier.” 47 C.F.R. § 51.701(e). 3 . AT & T limited its claim for relief to compensation it calculated was due prior to June 14, 2001. {See D.I. 1 at Ex B. ¶ 2, n. 5.) It did so, it said, to "limit the complexity and to facilitate resolution of this dispute.” (Id.) That date coincides with the issuance of an FCC ruling, In re Implementation of Local Competition Provisions in Telecommunications Act of 1996, 16 F.C.C.R. 9151, 2001 WL 455869 (F.C.C.2001) (the "ISP Remand Order'reproduced at D.I. 52, p. NRM 056), remanded sub nom. WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 288 F.3d 429 (D.C.Cir.2002), cert. denied sub nom. Core Communs., Inc. v. FC ar under controlling authority that those defendants are subject to suit under 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6), see MCI Telecomm. Corp., 271 F.3d at 510-11 (<HOLDING>), and because the relief being sought under
holding that states participating in telecommunications regulation after passage of the act have waived their sovereign immunity with respect to their regulatory decisions holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation holding a states regulation of liquor was not a special sovereignty interest in part because of the pervasive federal interest in the regulation of liquor recognizing power of states to engage in some regulation of interstate commerce holding that interpretation of regulation by va that conflicted with plain meaning of regulation not entitled to deference