20000323Order No 28326.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF AVISTA COMMUNICATIONS OF IDAHO, INC.’S PETITION FOR TEMPORARY LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY RELIEF PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C.
§ 251(f)(2). )
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. AVC-T-00-1

ORDER NO. 28326

On February 4, 2000, Avista Communications of Idaho submitted a Petition seeking temporary suspension of its local number portability obligation as required by Section 251(b)(2) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. In addition, the Company requested an immediate suspension of any enforcement action concerning its interim number portability (INP) requirements pending the Commission’s final resolution of the Petition. On February 23, 2000, the Commission issued Order No. 28290 suspending enforcement of the INP requirements and issued a Notice of Modified Procedure requesting comments on Avista’s suspension request. Based upon our review of the Petition and the comments, we find that it is reasonable and appropriate to temporarily suspend Avista’s local number portability obligation as outlined in greater detail below.
BACKGROUND
On March 8, 2000, U S WEST Communications implemented local number portability (LNP) in its Lewiston switch. Once LNP was implemented, U S WEST asserted that it is no longer allowed to provide INP in the Lewiston exchange to other carriers unless that carrier obtains a waiver of its LNP/INP obligation. Although Avista has ordered a new LNP-capable switch for its Lewiston operations, the manufacturer of Avista’s switch (Lucent Technologies) has not provided Avista with a firm installation date. Avista’s current switching equipment can provide INP, but not LNP. Avista anticipates that its new LNP-capable switch will be operational before August 15, 2000. Consequently, the Company requested a waiver of its LNP obligation, until the new switch is operational, or August 15, 2000, whichever is earlier.
U S WEST supported Avista’s waiver request. Attached as an exhibit to Avista’s Petition, was a letter from U S WEST’s counsel. As stated in the letter, U S WEST believed that FCC rules prohibit U S WEST from accepting any interim number portability-based “orders from other carriers unless the ordering carrier’s Section 251(b)(2) obligations have been waived or suspended.” Without the relief requested by Avista, U S WEST indicates that it cannot accept Avista’s INP-based orders with due dates after March 8, 2000.
The federal Telecommunications Act permits state commissions to suspend or modify a local exchange carrier’s Section 251(b) obligations if the carrier serves fewer than 2% of the nation’s subscriber lines. This section further provides that a state commission shall grant a petition for suspension
to the extent that, and for such duration as, the State commission determines that such suspension or modification

(A) is necessary—

(i) to avoid a significant adverse economic impact on users of telecommunications services generally;
…

(iii) to avoid imposing a requirement that is technically infeasible; and

(B) is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

The State commission shall act on any petition filed under this paragraph within 180 days after receiving such petition. Pending such action, the State commission may suspend enforcement of a requirement or requirements to which the petition applies with respect to the petitioning carrier or carriers.

47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2) (emphasis added). In Order No. 28290 the Commission found that Avista serves fewer than 2% of the nation’s subscriber lines.

THE COMMENTS
In its Order No. 28290, the Commission requested that persons interested in commenting upon Avista’s Petition file written comments no later than March 15, 2000. The only comments received were submitted by the Commission Staff. The Staff recommended that Avista’s request for a temporary suspension of its Section 251(b)(2) obligation to implement LNP be granted. The Staff observed that suspending Avista’s LNP obligation appears to be consistent with the procedures identified in Section 251(f)(2) of the Telecommunications Act. “Because Avista has ordered and will install LNP capable switching equipment, there is no attempt to avoid this interconnection obligation. Without the waiver, Avista would be at competitive disadvantage during this period, as it could not offer customers the option of keeping the same number if they switch service providers.” Staff Comments at 2.
Staff also noted that the setup time for calls using INP takes slightly longer than for calls using LNP technology, although the time difference between the two functions is typically a fraction of a second. Because Avista’s requested suspension period is less than six months in duration, and the differences between LNP and INP is so small, Staff “does not consider this delay [in implementing LNP] to be significant.” Id. Consequently, Staff recommended that Avista’s LNP obligation be suspended until August 15, 2000, or until such earlier time as its new switch is installed and operational.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Based upon our review of Avista’s Petition and the supporting comments of U S WEST and Staff, we find that there is good cause to temporarily suspend Avista’s Section 251(b)(2) local number portability obligation. As noted in our previous Order No. 28290, Avista serves fewer than 2% of the nation’s subscriber lines, thus making it eligible for the relief provided in Section 251(f)(2).
The Commission finds that a suspension of Avista’s LNP obligation is necessary to avoid: (1) a significant adverse economic impact on users of telecommunications services; (2) imposing a requirement that is unduly economic burdensome; and (3) imposing a requirement that is technically infeasible. 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2)(A). Granting Avista a suspension of its LNP obligation until August 15, 2000, or until such earlier time when its new switch is operational is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2)(B). If Avista’s LNP-capable switch becomes operational before August 15, 2000, the Company will timely notify the Commission and U S WEST of this fact.

O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition filed by Avista Communications of Idaho for temporary suspension of its local number portability obligation is granted. Suspension of Avista’s Section 251(b)(2) obligation is temporarily suspended until August 15, 2000, unless its new switch becomes operational at an earlier time.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Avista notify the Commission Secretary and U S WEST when the new switch becomes operational.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally decided by this Order) or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. AVCT001 may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order with regard to any matter decided in this order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. AVCT001. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of March 2000.

DENNIS S. HANSEN, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

PAUL KJELLANDER, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary

vld/AVC-T-00-1_dh2

ORDER NO. 28326 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
March 23, 2000