Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-113 
 
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 ON REVIEW 
 
Adopted:  Sept. 6, 2017 Released:  Sept. 7, 2017 
 
By the Commission: 
 
1. This Order denies an Application for Review filed by Worldcall Interconnect, Inc. 
(WCX),1 which requests reversal of an order issued by the Enforcement Bureau’s Market Disputes 
Resolution Division on September 22, 2016.2  The Division Order adopted the holding in an earlier 
Interim Order3 that denied portions of a formal complaint that WCX filed against AT&T Mobility LLC 
(AT&T) alleging violations of the Commission’s roaming rules and orders.4  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.  Applying Section 20.12(e) of the Commission’s 
rules, 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 failed to meet its burden of showing that AT&T’s proposed data 
roaming rates are commercially unreasonable.5   
                                                     
1 Application for Review of Worldcall Interconnect, EB-14-MD-011 (filed Oct. 24, 2016) (Application for Review 
or AFR). 
2 Worldcall Interconnect v. AT&T Mobility, Order, 31 FCC Rcd 10531 (EB 2016) (Division Order or Order).  The 
Enforcement Bureau’s Market Disputes Resolution Division is referred to here as “the Division.”  
3 Worldcall Interconnect v. AT&T Mobility, Order, 31 FCC Rcd 3527 (EB 2016) (Interim Order).  At Worldcall’s 
request, the Division issued a letter ruling clarifying certain aspects of the Interim Order.  Worldcall Interconnect v. 
AT&T Mobility, EB-14-MD-011, Letter Order, 2016 WL 3459145 (EB June 22, 2016).    
4 Second Amended Complaint, EB-14-MD-011 (filed Nov. 6, 2014) (Compl. or Complaint).  WCX filed its original 
complaint on September 8, 2014, and filed amended complaints on October 1 and November 6, 2014.   
5 Interim Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 3532-41, paras. 12-28 & n.32; 47 CFR § 20.12(e).  The Interim Order directed the 
parties to resume negotiating a roaming agreement and to report to Commission staff on the progress of their 
negotiations.  Interim Order at 3541, para. 29.  The parties did so and ultimately reported that they had “executed a 
roaming agreement, which resolves the remaining issues consistent with the Interim Order.”  Sixth Joint Status 
Report, EB-14-MD-011 at 1 (filed Aug. 22, 2016).  The parties indicated that they had 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 to seek administrative reconsideration or review of those rulings.  Division Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 
10531-32, para. 2.  Accordingly, on September 22, 2016, the Division issued the Order under review, which 
incorporated and adopted in their entirety the rulings set forth in the Interim Order.  Id., 31 FCC Rcd at 10532, para. 
2.   

 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-113 
 3 
wireless broadband Internet access,”11 that its Complaint alleged a violation of that rule, and that the 
effect of the Division Order was, in its view, to limit its ability to offer “mobile broadband Internet 
access” to its customers.12  The roaming service that WCX is purchasing – use of AT&T’s mobile 
broadband Internet access service – is subject to Section 20.12(e).      
5. Focusing on the wrong side of the bargain, WCX erroneously contends that its roaming 
request is governed by Section 20.12(d) because of capabilities WCX will offer its customers (such as 
switched voice service).13  Importantly, WCX concedes that, when its customers use WCX’s voice or 
other services while roaming on AT&T’s network, “[t]o AT&T it will be no different than when WCX’s 
customer is surfing the web or receiving an e-mail.”14   
6. The text, structure, history, and purpose of Section 20.12 demonstrate that WCX is 
wrong.  Section 20.12(d) establishes that the obligation set forth for CMRS roaming is only an obligation 
“for CMRS carriers.”15  At the time the rule was promulgated, and at all times relevant to this dispute, the 
obligations imposed under the CMRS roaming rule were thus intended to apply to a host carrier only 
“insofar as such person is engaged” in the provision of CMRS, text messaging, and push-to-talk.16  These, 
and these alone, are “the services covered by” Section 20.12(d).17  The “complementary” provisions of 
Section 20.12(d) and Section 20.12(e) that WCX references are complementary obligations imposed on 
AT&T based on the nature of its offerings, not complementary rights of WCX based on how it chooses to 
use the roaming services it has purchased.  WCX requests only a mobile broadband Internet access 
service from AT&T.  Accordingly, Section 20.12(e) governs WCX’s roaming requests.  
7. This result does not exempt LTE networks from the CMRS rule.18  Nothing about our 
ruling here implies, much less requires, that if a host provider offers “real-time, two-way switched voice” 
service over its LTE network, such roaming service offered by the host provider will not be subject to the 
CMRS roaming rule in Section 20.12(d).     
8. We also affirm the Division’s ruling that WCX failed to demonstrate that AT&T’s 
proposed rates are commercially unreasonable under Section 20.12(e).  We reject WCX’s argument that 
the Division erred by excluding AT&T’s “strategic agreements” from its assessment of AT&T’s proposed 
data roaming rates.19  As the Division explained, the so-called “strategic agreements” AT&T produced in 
this proceeding “include rates and terms that address a broader set of rights, such as [BEGIN HIGHLY 
CONFIDENTIAL]    [END HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL] that 
are not directly related to roaming” and were distinguishable from the stand-alone roaming agreement 
                                                     
11 AFR at 10 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 8. 
12 Id. at 5, 8-9. 
13 See id. at 8-10; id. at 12 & n.48 (arguing for different roaming rates based on “the application the user runs on an 
LTE network”); AFR Reply at 2 & n.5.  
14 Compl. at 271-72 (offering WCX’s legal analysis).  See AFR at 12; AFR Reply at 2 (“AT&T activities do not 
vary and AT&T will not know what the user is doing”). 
15 See 47 CFR § 20.12(a)(2); CMRS Roaming Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15817, 15829, para. 29; Data Roaming Order, 26 
FCC Rcd 5411, 5413, para. 4.   
16 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1)(A); see also CMRS Roaming Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15827-28, para. 26 (“if a CMRS 
provider offers automatic roaming, it triggers its common carrier obligations with respect to the provisioning of that 
service under the Communications Act”) (emphasis added); id. at 15831, para. 33. 
17 Data Roaming Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5413, para. 4.  See supra note 10. 
18 See AFR at iii (asserting that the result of this interpretation would be that “LTE networks . . . will only be subject 
to the commercial mobile data service roaming rule.”). 
19 Id. at 14.  

 Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-113 
 5 
10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 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 1.115, 1.720-1.735, and 20.12 of the Commission’s rules, that the Application for 
Review IS DENIED.  
      FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
 
 
 
 
      Marlene H. Dortch 
      Secretary