Chris Herot interprets the AT&T Iowa lawsuit of 29 January 2007:

AT&T’s argument is that Superior is not entitled to charges for “termination” since connecting to the gateway is not considered termination but instead is just an intermediate routing in order to terminate the call elsewhere.

More on AT&T vs. Superior Telephone Cooperative, et al, Christopher Herot’s Weblog, 14 Feb 2007

Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but isn’t that what net neutrality advocates are arguing for on the Internet? Flat fee peering and end users only pay their own ISPs? Kind of ironic, if so.

In any case, Chris includes a link to the complaint.

-jsq