--Maryland Decision Finds Verizon Violated the Law and Failed to Act in Good Faith--

ANNAPOLIS, MD, March 8, 2004 -- The Maryland Public Service Commission ruled last week that Verizon Maryland Inc. violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the terms of its interconnection agreement with Core Communications, Inc., and obligation of good faith and fair dealing when it refused to interconnect its telecommunications network to Core’s network using available facilities in Baltimore in 1999.

At that time, Core had requested that Verizon use the available facilities; but Verizon refused and instead delayed completion of the interconnection while it constructed brand new, duplicative facilities, without any technical justification.

The Commission found that the unnecessary facilities construction delayed the interconnection process by more than three months. The Commission stated “it is clear that interconnection of Core over the existing facility was proposed by Core and could have been accomplished in an expeditious manner, apparently sometime around mid-September 1999 as requested by Core, but Verizon refused to do so until construction of new facilities which did not result in interconnection until apparently December 23, 1999.”

During the delay period, Core was not able to provide service to its customers, because without facilities-based interconnection, Core’s customers could not communicate with Verizon’s customers, who represent the vast majority of telecommunications users in Maryland.

The Commission further found that Verizon intentionally withheld key information from Core during the interconnection process: The Commission stated that “Verizon refused to offer the use of the existing loop and multiplexer once Core expressed its interest and instead denied the use by its assignation to an unnamed customer of record. The fact that this customer happened to be Core itself shows lack of full disclosure by Verizon and failure to deal in good faith.”

Core President Bret Mingo stated: “We applaud the Commission’s straightforward ruling. The Commission saw what we see and endure every day – that Verizon simply does not believe it has any duty to provide facilities-based interconnection in a timely fashion. Hopefully, as these decisions pile up, Verizon will finally come to its senses and start to play fair. After all, Verizon says it prefers facilities-based competition over other forms, such as unbundling and resale.”

Mingo further stated: “Our next task is to hold Verizon accountable for the damages their delays cost us, which we anticipate could run in the millions of dollars.”

This is the second time in the last year a tribunal has found that Verizon treated Core unlawfully. Last April, the FCC found that Verizon failed to provide reasonable interconnection Core in the Washington, D.C. area in 2000. “Taken together the Maryland and FCC rulings demonstrate an increasingly obvious pattern of delay and obstruction on Verizon’s part,” said Mingo.

# # #

About Core Communications, Inc.

Core Communications, Inc. ("CoreTel") is a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland. CoreTel competes directly with Verizon - Maryland, Inc. and other CLECs in the highly contested data communications marketplace. CoreTel relies on its expertise with integrating the Internet and telephone networks to provide targeted services to data-focused customers. As a CLEC, CoreTel is the product of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which deregulated local exchange telecommunications nationwide, as well as the pro-competition policies of the Maryland Public Service Commission. CoreTel's investors include Charles Ross Partners, LLC. For more information, please visit CoreTel's web site at www.coretel.net.