“Its” is exclusive---legal interpretations mean the plan must solely apply to federal IPR

AT&T also argues that Merger Commitment 7.4 only permits extension of “any given” interconnection agreement for a single three year term. AT&T Brief at 12. Specifically, AT&T asserts that because Cricket adopted the interconnection agreement between Sprint and AT&T, which itself was extended, Cricket is precluded from extending the term of its agreement with AT&T. Id This argument relies upon an inaccurate assumption: that the agreement (contract) between Sprint and AT&T, and the agreement (contract) between Cricket and AT&T, are one and the same. In other words, to accept AT&T’s argument the Commission must conclude that two separate contracts, i.e. the interconnection between Sprint and AT&T in Kentucky (“Sprint Kentucky Agreement”) and the interconnection between Cricket and AT&T in Kentucky (“Cricket Kentucky Agreement”), are one and the same. Upon this unstated (and inaccurate) premise AT&T asserts that “the ICA was already extended”; id. at 14, and “the ICA Cricket seeks to extend was extended by Sprint . . . .”; id. at 15, and, finally, “Cricket cannot extend the same ICA a second time . . . .” Id. (emphasis added in all). Note that in the quoted portions of the AT&T brief (and elsewhere) AT&T uses vague and imprecise language when referring to either the Sprint Kentucky Agreement, or the Cricket Kentucky Agreement, in hopes that the Commission will treat the two contracts as one and the same. But it would be a mistake to do so. The contract governing AT&T’s duties and obligations with Sprint is a legally distinct and separate contract from that which governs AT&T’s duties with Cricket. The Sprint Kentucky Agreement was approved by the Commission in September of 2001 in Case Number 2000-00480. The Cricket Kentucky Agreement was approved by the Commission in September of 2008 in Case Number 2008-033 1. AT&T ignores the fact that these are two separate and distinct contracts because it knows that the merger commitments apply to each agreement that an individual telecommunications carrier has with AT&T. Notably, Merger Commitment 7.4 states that “AT&T/BellSouth ILECs shall permit a requesting telecommunications carrier to extend its current interconnection agreement . . . . As written, the commitment allows any carrier to extend “its” agreement. Clearly, the use of the pronoun “its” in this context is possessive, such that the term “its” means - that particular carrier’s agreement with AT&T (and not any other carrier’s agreement). Thus, the merger commitment applies to each agreement that an individual carrier may have with AT&T. It necessarily follows then, that Cricket’s right to extend its agreement under Merger Commitment 7.4 is separate and distinct right from another carrier’s right to extend its agreement with AT&T (or whether such agreement has been extended).