20000320Decision Memo.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
MYRNA WALTERS
RON LAW
TONYA CLARK
STEPHANIE MILLER
DAVE SCHUNKE
JOE CUSICK
WAYNE HART
LYNN ANDERSON
WORKING FILE

FROM:

DATE: March 20, 2000

RE: AVISTA COMMUNICATIONS’ PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF OF ITS LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY OBLIGATION IN LEWISTON, CASE NO. AVC-T-00-1

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. Commission Staff was the only party to file comments.
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.

STAFF 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.
Commission Decision
Does the Commission find that there is good cause to suspend Avista’s LNP obligation until August 15, 2000?

vld/M:AVC-T-00-1_dh

DECISION MEMORANDUM 1