20160112final_order_no_33450.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
January 12.2016
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF CENTURYTEL OF IDAHO,INC.DBA )CASE NO.CEN-T-15-07
CENTURYLINK FOR APPROVAL OF ITS )
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT WITH )
RCLEC,INC.PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C.§)
252(e))
_________________________________________________________________________________________
)
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF CENTURYTEL OF THE GEM STATE,)CASE NO.CGS-T-15-07
INC.DBA CENTURYLINK FOR APPROVAL )
OF ITS INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT )
WITH RCLEC,INC.PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C.)ORDER NO.33450
§252(e))
In these cases,the Commission is asked to approve Interconnection Agreements
between CenturyTel of Idaho,Inc.dba CenturyLink and CenturyTel of the Gem State,Inc.dba
CenturyLink and RCLEC,Inc.With this Order,the Commission approves the 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)(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.S.C.§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 25 1(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 [Part 51].”47 C.F.R.§51.3.
THE APPLICATIONS
1.Centur Tel of Idaho,Inc.dba CenturyLink and RCLEC,Inc.,Case No.CEN-T
15-07.The parties’Application sets out rates,terms and conditions for local interconnection,
ORDER NO.33450 1
collocation,local resale,and purchase of unbundled network elements (UNE).The Agreement
was reached through voluntary negotiations without resort to mediation or arbitration and
submitted for approval pursuant to Section 252(e)of the Communications Act of 1934,as
amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
2.CenturyTel of the Gem State,Inc.dba CenturyLink and RCLEC,Inc.,Case No.
CGS-T-15-07.The parties’Application sets out rates,terms and conditions for local
interconnection,collocation,local resale,and purchase of unbundled network elements (UNE).
The Agreement was reached through voluntary negotiations without resort to mediation or
arbitration and submitted for approval pursuant to Section 252(e)of the Communications Act of
1934,as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff reviewed the Applications and did not find any terms or conditions that it
considers to be discriminatory or contrary to the public interest.Staff believes that the
Interconnection Agreements referenced above are consistent with the pro-competitive policies of
this Commission,the Idaho Legislature,and the federal Telecommunications Act.Accordingly,
Staff recommended the Commission approve the Interconnection Agreements.
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)(l).However,the Commission’s review is limited.The Commission may reject an
agreement adopted by negotiation piy 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.Id.
Based upon our review of the Applications and Staffs recommendations,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 the 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 §62-603.
ORDER NO.33450 2
ORDER
IT IS FIEREBY ORDERED that the Interconnection Agreement between Centurylel
of Idaho.Inc.dba CenturyLink and RCLEC,Inc.,Case No.CEN-T-15-07.is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Interconnection Agreement between
CenturvTel of the Gem State,Inc.dba CenturyLink and RCLEC,Inc..Case No.CGS-T-15-07,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 (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 62-6 19.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this
day of January 2016.
/
PAUL KJELLANDR,PRESIDENT
_tJ_-I
KR INE RAPER,COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
/1 /1
JIan D Jewel(
Commission Secretary
O:CEN-T-1 5-O7CGS-T-1 5-O7np
ERIC ANDERSON,COMMISSIONER
ORDER NO.33450 3