The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20090515final_order_no_30810.pdfOffice ofthe Secretary Service Date May 15 2009 BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CAMBRIDGE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF ITS INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT WITH SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. AND SPRINTCOM, INc., COLLECTIVELY ("SPRINT" ), PURSUANT TO 47 U.C. ~ 252(e) IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CAMBRIDGE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INc. FOR APPROVAL OF ITS INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT WITH NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC DBA AT&T MOBILITY PURSUANT TO 47 C. ~ 252(e) CASE NO. CAM- T -09- CASE NO. CAM-09- ORDER NO. 30810 In this case the Commission is asked to approve Interconnection Agreements between Cambridge Telephone Company, Inc. and Sprint Spectrum LP. and SprintCOM, Inc. collectively known as Sprint; and Cambridge Telephone Company, Inc. and New Cingular Wireless PCS , LLC dba AT&T Mobility. With this Order, the Commission approves the parties Interconnection Agreements. BACKGROUND Under the provisions ofthe federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, interconnection agreements, including amendments thereto, must be submitted to the Commission for approval. 47 US.C. 9252(e)(1). The Commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiations only if it finds that the agreement: (1) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (2) implementation of the agreement is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. 47 U.c. 9 252(e)(2)(A). As the Commission noted in Order No. 28427, companies voluntarily entering into interconnection agreements "may negotiate terms, prices and conditions that do not comply with either the FCC rules or with the provision of Section 251(b) or (c).Order No. 28427 at 11 (emphasis in original). This comports with the FCC's statement that "a state commission shall have authority to approve an ORDER NO. 30810 interconnection agreement adopted by negotiation even if the terms of the agreement do not comply with the requirements of (Part 51 J." 47 c.F .R. 9 5l. THE APPLICATIONS 1. Cambridge Telephone Company, Inc. and Sprint Spectrum LP. and SprintCOM, Inc., collectively known as Sprint. Case No. CAM-09-01. On April 29, 2009, Cambridge submitted an Application for approval of its Interconnection Agreement with Sprint. The Agreement sets forth the relevant rates, terms and conditions pertaining to Reciprocal Compensation.Pursuant to the Agreement, Reciprocal Compensation is defined as a compensation arrangement between two carriers for the transport and termination of telecommunications traffic on each carrier s network facilities.The Application stated that the Agreement was reached through voluntary negotiations. 2. Cambridge Telephone Company, Inc. and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dba AT&T Mobility, Case No. CAM-09- On April 29, 2009, Cambridge submitted an Application for approval of its Interconnection Agreement with AT&T Mobility. The Agreement sets forth the relevant rates terms and conditions pertaining to Reciprocal Compensation.Pursuant to the Agreement Reciprocal Compensation is defined as a compensation arrangement between two carriers for the transport and termination of telecommunications traffic on each carrier s network facilities. The Application stated that the Agreement was reached through voluntary negotiations. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the Applications and does not find any terms or conditions that it considers to be discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff believes that the Interconnection Agreements are consistent with the pro-competitive policies of this Commission the Idaho Legislature, and the federal Telecommunications Act. recommended that the Commission approve the foregoing Agreements. Accordingly, Staff COMMISSION DECISION Under the terms of the Telecommunications Act, interconnection agreements including amendments thereto, must be submitted to the Commission for approval. 47 U.C. 9 252(e)(1). The Commission s review is limited, however. The Commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiation only if it finds that the agreement discriminates against a ORDER NO. 30810 telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement or implementation of the agreement is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Id. Based upon our review of the Applications and the Staff s recommendation, the Commission finds that the Agreements are consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity and do not discriminate. Therefore, the Commission finds that the Agreements should be approved. Approval of these Agreements does not negate the responsibility of either party to these Agreements to obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity if they are offering local exchange services or to comply with Idaho Code ~~ 62-604 and 62-606 if they are providing other non-basic local telecommunications services as defined by Idaho Code 9 62-603. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Interconnection Agreement between Cambridge Telephone Company, Inc. and Sprint Spectrum LP. and SprintCOM, Inc., collectively known as Sprint, Case No. CAM-09-, is approved. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Interconnection Agreement between Cambridge Telephone Company, Inc. and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dba AT&T Mobility, Case No. CAM-09-, is approved. THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally decided by this Order) may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (2l) days of the service date of this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code ~~ 61- 626 and 62-619. ORDER NO. 30810 DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 16M day of May 2009. . KEMPTON, P DENT MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER MA A. RE 0 MISSIONER ATTEST: ~I\le D. JewellCo ission Secretary O:CAM- T-09-0 1- CAM- T-09-02 - np ORDER NO. 30810