20120112final_order_no_32435.pdf

Offce of the Secretar
Service Date
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Januar 12,2012
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
CENTURYTEL OF IDAHO, INC. DBA
CENTURYLINK FOR APPROVAL OF
AMENDMENTS TO ITS INTERCONNECTION
AGREEMENT WITH BULLSEYE TELECOM,
INC. PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
CENTURYTEL OF THE GEM STATE, INC.
DBA CENTURYLINK FOR APPROVAL OF
AMENDMENTS TO ITS INTERCONNECTION
AGREEMENT WITH BULLSEYE TELECOM,
INC. PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)
)
) CASE NO. CEN-T-IO-Ol
)
)
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. CGS-T-IO-Ol
)
)
) ORDER NO. 32435
)
)
In these cases, the Commission is asked to approve amendments to the,
Interconnection Agreements between CenturTel of Idaho, Inc. dba CenturyLink and Bullseye
Telecom, Inc.; and CenturTel of the Gem State, Inc. dba CenturLink and Bullseye Telecop-,
Inc. With this Order, the Commission approves the amendments to the paries' Interconnection
Agreements.
BACKGROUND
Under the provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the Act"),
interconnection agreements, including amendments thereto, must be submitted to the
Commission for approval. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(l). The Commission may reject an agreement
adopted by negotiations only if it finds that the agreement: (l) discriminates against a
telecommunications carrier not a pary to the agreement; or (2) implementation of the agreement
is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(2)(A).
As the Commission noted in Order No. 28427, companies voluntarly 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 interconnection agreement adopted by negotiation even if the terms
of the agreement do not comply with the requirements of (Par 51)." 47 C.F.R. § 51.3.
ORDER NO. 32435 1
THE APPLICATION
1. CentuTel of Idaho, Inc. dba CentuLink and Bullseye Telecom, Inc.. Case No.
CEN-T-I0-0L. On December 20, 2011, CentuLink filed an Application seeking Commission
approval of Amendments to its Interconnection Agreement with Bullseye. The paries have
agreed through voluntar negotiation to amend their Agreement to reflect that CenturLink no
longer represents and warrants that it is a "Rural Telephone Company," as that term is defined in
the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 153. The proposed amendments also include terms and conditions for local
service resale and ancilar services.
2. CenturTel of the Gem State, Inc. dba CenturLink and Bullseye Telecom, Inc..
Case No. CGS-T-lO-OL. On December 20, 2011, CenturLink-Gem State fied an Application
seeking Commission approval of Amendments to its Interconnection Agreement with Bullseye.
The paries have agreed through voluntar negotiation to amend their Agreement to reflect that
CenturLink-Gem State no longer represents and warants that it is a "Rural Telephone
Company," as that term is defined in the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 153. The proposed amendments also
include terms and conditions for local service resale and ancilar services.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff reviewed the Applications and does not find any terms or conditions that it
considers to be discriminatory or contrar to the public interest. Staff believes that the
Amendments to the Interconnection Agreements are consistent with the pro-competitive policies
of this Commission, the Idaho Legislature, and the federal Telecommuncations Act.
Accordingly, Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Amendments to the
Interconnection Agreements between CentuyLink and Bullseye, and CenturLink-Gem State
and Bullseye.
COMMISSION FINDINGS
Under the terms of the Telecommunications Act, interconnection agreements,
including amendments thereto, must be submitted to the Commission for approvaL. 47 U.S.C. §
252(e)(I). However, the Commission's review is limited. The Commission may reject an
agreement adopted by negotiation only if it finds that the agreement discriminates against a
telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement or implementation of the agreement is
not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. ¡d.
ORDER NO. 32435 2
Based upon our review of the Applications and the Star s recommendation, the
Commission finds that the Amendments to the Agreements are consistent with the public
interest, convenience and necessity and do not discriminate. Therefore, the Commission finds
that the Amendments to the Agreements should be approved. Approval of the Agreements does
not negate the responsibilty of either pary 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 § 62-603.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amendments to the Interconnection Agreement
between CentuTel of Idaho, Inc. dba Centu Link and Bullseye Telecom, Inc., Case No. CEN-
T -10-01, are approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amendments to the Interconnection Agreement
between CentuTel of the Gem State, Inc. dba CentuLink and Bullseye Telecom, Inc., Case
No. CGS-T-1O-01, are 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 (21) 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. 32435 3
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilties Commission at Boise, Idaho this / J-'l
day of January 2012.
----...
n
MACK A. REDFO
~d~
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~ßl.~
'. D:JeweÍ
Commission Secretary
O:CEN- T-lO-Ol_CGS- T-lO-Ol_up
ORDER NO. 32435 4