To gain perspective on the steps leading to the formation of the Coalition, the following is a timeline that encapsulates key milestones:

2001

• AT&T Corp. v. Jefferson Telephone Co., 16 FCC Rcd 16130 (2001).  First of three legal precedents in which the FCC found that rural carriers may lawfully team with conference providers and other companies that generate telephone traffic:  “AT&T has failed to demonstrate that Jefferson violated its duty as a common carrier or section 202(a) by entering into an access revenue-sharing arrangement with an end-user information provider.”

2002

• AT&T Corp. v. Frontier Communications of Mt. Pulaski, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 4041 (2002) Second of three legal precedents supporting rural carriers.  AT&T filed complaints against five rural carriers, arguing that their revenue-sharing arrangements with various information service providers were illegal.  The FCC summarily denied AT&T’s complaint with prejudice, stating:  “The issues raised in this Complaint are identical to those raised and denied in AT&T Corp. v. Jefferson Telephone Co.”
• AT&T v. Beehive Telephone Co., 17 FCC Rcd 11641 (2002). Third FCC precedent rejecting AT&T’s claims against rural carriers. AT&T argued that an arrangement under which Beehive Tel. made per-minute payments or flat monthly payments to an information service provider violated §§ 201(b) and 202(a) of the Communications Act.  The FCC rejected AT&T’s arguments, noting that they were “identical to those raised and denied in AT&T v. Jefferson and AT&T v. Frontier.”  Id. at ¶ 29.  “[W]e deny AT&T’s claims regarding the access revenue-sharing arrangement between Beehive and the information service provider, because AT&T has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that this arrangement violated either section 201(b) or section 202(a) of the Act.”  Id. at ¶ 2.
  

2005

• The Madison River case paves way for FCC to eliminate blocking without a drawn out investigation.  The Commission had received reports that Madison River Communications, LLC, a North Carolina ILEC Madison River, was blocking ports used by one or more providers of VoIP services. No formal or informal complaints were filed in that case.  Rather, the Commission initiated an investigation on its own motion.  On February 11, 2005, the Commission issued a Letter of Inquiry that initiated the investigation.  Three weeks later – on March 3, 2005, the Commission had successfully negotiated and finalized a Consent Decree that eliminated all blocking and imposed a fine on Madison River.
• Rural LECs begin to partner with conferencing providers who create a new market sector for free conference calls powered over PSTN.  Free conference calls become a staple for non-profit organizations, religious groups and small business customers are still feeling the impact from losing their conferencing service.

2006

• Led by AT&T, the IXCs stop paying access charges for services provided by Iowa LECs, prompting a series of lawsuits to recoup approximately $20 million lost by the nonpayment.

2007

• March 9, 2007 – AT&T leads IXCs in patently illegal blocking of calls, attempting to justify this practice by accusing LECs of “traffic pumping.”
• March 12 – April 13, 2007 – Iowa telcos and conferencing providers strike back with grassroots campaign to gain support from FCC, legislators, media and public interest groups.  More than 1,000 complaints received by FCC and state attorney generals throughout the U.S.
• April 16, 2007 – after one month of crippling LECs, conferencing providers and end customers, IXCs succumb to FCC demands and pressure from media and public interest groups and cease major blocking; however, they persist in practices that degrade call quality.
• April 18 – 20, 2007 – LECs and conference providers meet with FCC and Iowa legislators to hold the IXCs accountable for their actions.
• April 24, 2007 -- LECs and conference providers form Coalition for Carrier Neutrality to band together and send unified message to FCC and Congress to bring the IXCs to the table to stop nonpayment and launch a formal investigation into the consequences of their actions.