MCI described the latest charges of fraud regarding its call termination practices as "baseless" and accused AT&T of attempting to "delay and derail" its Chapter 11 reorganization efforts. MCI said its own analysis and a preliminary review conducted by the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP indicate that its call routing practices are legal and comply with regulatory requirements. In a court filing seeking to dismiss AT&T's objections, MCI countered a number of AT&T's specific legal claims. Specifically:
- MCI stated that its contract with Onvoy -- a provider of "least-cost routing" services was "completely legal and commonplace" and that there is nothing even remotely illegal about Onvoy's routing of domestic traffic via Canada. MCI noted that AT&T engages in the same types of arrangements;
MCI claimed that it does not and has not itself routed traffic through Canada (though there would be nothing illegal about such a practice if it did) ;
MCI refuted claims by AT&T that MCI has avoided the costs of access charges and that AT&T is not fairly compensated for its role in terminating traffic;
MCI stated that it has certain government contracts that require it to carry classified traffic in a secure manner and none of that traffic is or was routed through Onvoy;
Finally, MCI described AT&T's invocation of the 'national interest' as a "transparent attempt to promote its corporate interest in shutting down one of its competitors by publishing malicious fabrications."
