HomeMy WebLinkAbout19970708Order No 27037.docBEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY OF IDAHO FOR APPROVAL OF
AN INTRALATA TOLL DIALING PARITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
)
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. CTC T 97 2
ORDER NO. 27037
On March 24, 1997, Citizens Telecommunications Company of Idaho (CTC-Idaho) filed an Application requesting that the Commission approve an intraLATA long-distance dialing parity plan no later than August 8, 1997. CTC-Idaho is a sister company of Citizens Telecommunications which is a provider of intrastate long-distance services and is also authorized to resell local telephone service in certain areas of Idaho. On May 5, 1997, the Commission issued a Notice of Application scheduling a deadline for intervention and a status conference. On June 6, 1997, the parties filed a Settlement Agreement that modified some provisions contained in CTC-Idahos initial plan.
On June 13, 1997, the Commission issued a Notice of Modified Procedure requesting comments upon CTC-Idahos dialing parity plan in the Settlement Agreement. The Notice of Modified of Procedure directed that interested persons submit written comments in this case no later than June 27, 1997. The only comments received were those of the Commission Staff and U S WEST both supporting adoption of the Settlement Agreement. Based upon the Settlement Agreement and the lack of any opposition, the Commission adopts the Settlement Agreement and approves CTC-Idahos dialing parity plan as amended.
CTC-IDAHOS APPLICATION
Section 251(b)(3) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, requires that local exchange companies (LECs), such as CTC-Idaho, provide dialing parity to all long-distance carriers. Dialing parity means that a customer has access to a long-distance carrier of the customers choice on an equal dialing or 1+ basis. CTC-Idaho asserted that the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) rules implementing the dialing parity requirement of the Act compel the Company to provide equal access to all interLATA and intraLATA long-distance companies. Application at 3. The Company currently provides all of its customers with interLATA equal access capability, i.e., all CTC-Idaho customers have the ability to choose an interLATA 1+ toll carrier of their choice. Because CTC-Idahos sister company (Citizens Telecommunications) is authorized to provide interLATA toll services, the FCC requires that CTC-Idaho implement both intraLATA and interLATA dialing parity in all its exchanges. If Citizens Telecommunications begins providing interLATA toll services before August 8, 1997, then FCC Rule 51.213(b) requires that CTC-Idaho offer its customers intraLATA and interLATA dialing parity by that same date. See 47 C.F.R. 51.213(b) (1996).
CTC-Idaho proposed to provide intraLATA equal access featuring two-PIC capability. Application at 6. This will allow each CTC-Idaho customer to presubscribe to one long-distance company for all interLATA toll calls and to presubscribe to the same or another long-distance company for all intraLATA toll calls.
To meet the August 8, 1997 deadline, CTC-Idaho proposed the following schedule in its Application to implement intraLATA equal access dialing.
Date Action
May 12, 1997 Notify interexchange carriers of date of effectiveness of intraLATA equal access conversion in each end office
May 12, 1997 Business offices commence procedures for training associated with intraLATA equal access conversions
June 10, 1997 All intraLATA equal access circuits (trunks and translations) in place and testing to begin
June 10, 1997 File equal access recovery charge tariff
July 10, 1997 Deadline for receipt of Access Service Requests from interexchange carriers
July 10, 1997 Preconversion notification (one time) to customers, by billing inserts, of intraLATA equal access conversions
August 8, 1997 IntraLATA equal access conversion date
The Company proposed to recover the incremental costs of its dialing parity plan from all providers of 1+ intraLATA toll services offering such services in CTC-Idaho exchanges. Application at 5. The Companys incremental costs include dialing parity-specific switch software, any necessary hardware and signaling system upgrades, and consumer education costs that are strictly necessary to implement dialing parity. Id. at n.6. CTC-Idahos Application did not include a cost estimate. The Company proposed to recover its cost of conversion over a two-year period.
The Company recommended that the costs be allocated among long-distance carriers, including CTC-Idaho, on the basis of each carriers share of total intrastate (both intraLATA and interLATA) long-distance minutes of use. Id. at 9. CTC-Idaho will first forecast the total intrastate minutes of use for the first year. The Company will then develop an equal access recovery charge by dividing one-half of the total implementation costs by the total forecast minutes of use over the two-year period. This surcharge was originally supposed to be applied to all intrastate originated and terminating local switching minutes in CTC-Idaho exchanges for a twelve-month period. At the end of the first year, the surcharge will be adjusted to reflect any over- or under-recovery. The adjusted surcharge will then apply to the remaining twelve-month period. At the end of the recovery period, any deficiency or surplus will be charged or returned to the interexchange carriers in proportion to the implementation costs they have paid. Id. The Application did not contain the forecasted minutes of use.
CTC-Idaho asserted that recovering its dialing parity costs from all intrastate minutes of use of the 1+ intraLATA toll service providers is appropriate. The Company claimed that this recovery mechanism will fairly distribute the costs to a participating LEC that presently has no interLATA minutes of use and to interexchange carriers that presently have no intraLATA minutes of use. Id. at 9-10. Citizens Telecommunications fits into this latter category. The Company believed that this cost recovery proposal is competitively neutral and fully consistent with the FCCs dialing parity rules.
CTC-Idaho also proposed a one-time notification to its customers in July 1997. The Company will notify its customers by use of a postcard and the issuances of news releases to local news media outlets. The Company recommended that the issuance and return of a customer ballot not be used because it would be unduly disruptive and expensive for all participants in the equal access conversion process. Id. at 7. The Company maintained that customers who do not make an affirmative selection of an intraLATA carrier will remain with their existing 1+ intraLATA carrier. The Company insisted that FCC rules prohibit it from automatically assigning to itself new customers who do not affirmatively choose a toll provider. The Company proposed that new customers who do not make an affirmative selection of an intraLATA carrier, will not be provided 1+ intraLATA dialing capability until an affirmative selection is made. Id. at 7-8.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Order No. 26913 authorized CTC-Idaho to begin the first three steps in its dialing parity plan and schedule a status conference for May 27, 1997. The Order also established a deadline for intervention in this matter no later than May 14, 1997. Pursuant to the filing of timely petitions to intervene, the Commission granted intervention to U S WEST Communications, AT&T Communications, and the Idaho Telephone Association. On June 4, 1997, MCI Telecommunications Corporation filed a late Petition to Intervene and CTC-Idaho subsequently opposed MCIs late intervention. On June 9, 1997, MCI withdrew its Petition to Intervene pursuant to Rule 67, IDAPA 31.01.01.067.
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
On June 6, 1997, CTC-Idaho filed a Settlement Agreement entered into among the parties. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, CTC-Idaho shall implement 2-PIC intraLATA equal access thereby allowing its customers to presubscribe to one long-distance carrier for all interLATA calls and to the same or another carrier for all intraLATA toll calls. Agreement at 2. The Company agreed to provide individual notice to each customer by means of a one-time postcard mailing. The parties (as well as the Staff) agreed to the language of the customer notice. Existing CTC-Idaho customers who do not select a new intraLATA carrier will remain with their current carrier. Id. at 4. New CTC-Idaho customers who do not select an intraLATA carrier will not be able to make 1+ intraLATA toll calls but will be able to reach intraLATA long-distance carriers by other means (10XXX, 800+, etc.). Id. at 6. Customers will be allowed one intraLATA PIC change free of charge during the first six months of the conversion (beginning August 8, 1997). Id. at 10.
Paragraph 11 of the Settlement Agreement detailed out the various conversion costs that the Company will recover. In a departure from the Application the equal access recovery surcharge shall be applied to Citizens originating intrastate (intraLATA and interLATA) switched toll and other carriers originating intrastate (intraLATA and interLATA) switched access minutes in CTC-Idahos local exchanges. Based upon a forecast of originating minutes of use for the first year, the parties calculate that the surcharge will be $.00137 per minute which does not include the PIC change cost. Once calculated, the PIC change cost will be included with the surcharge when CTC-Idaho files its surcharge tariff. Id. at 11.
Although U S WEST and AT&T were parties to the Settlement Agreement, they conditioned their approval. Agreement at note 1. U S WEST suggested that the conversion surcharge should be applied to both originating and terminating access minutes. AT&T suggested that the surcharge be placed only on originating intraLATA access minutes of use. Despite these concerns, U S WEST and AT&T consented to the Settlement Agreement only for this particular case.
The Settlement Agreement also recommended that the Commission process this case under Modified Procedure. The Commission agreed and issued Order No. 26998 requesting public comment on the plan and the Settlement Agreement. Only two comments were received, both supporting the Settlement Agreement.
THE COMMENTS
1. The Commission Staff. The Staff recommended that the Commission adopt the Settlement Agreement and approve CTC-Idahos intraLATA dialing parity plan as amended. Although the Staff was not a signatory to the Settlement Agreement, it did participate in the negotiation sessions. Excluding the estimated costs of the PIC changes, the Staff stated that the Company estimated its costs of implementing the dialing parity plan as approximately $77,400.
2. U S WEST. The Company also filed comments in support of the Settlement Agreement. U S WEST asserted that the Settlement Agreement reflects a comprehensive solution to the issues raised by Citizens original Application and, if adopted, will permit Citizens to implement intraLATA 1+ presubscription or dialing parity for its Idaho operations. The Agreement is in the public interest for the reasons set out in Citizens Motion to Approve. . . . U S WEST Comments at 2.
DISCUSSION
Given the Settlement Agreement, the supporting comments, and the lack of any objection, we find it is appropriate to approve CTC-Idahos dialing parity plan as amended by the Settlement Agreement. We find that CTC-Idahos dialing parity plan does meet the requirement of the FCCs dialing parity rules. The Commission further finds that the estimated costs of conversion and the recovery mechanism are reasonable. Consequently, we adopt the Settlement.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CTC-Idaho is a telecommunications corporation subject to our regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to Idaho Code Title 61. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter as authorized by Idaho Code 61-503, -508, and 62-615(1) (effective July 1, 1997).
We find that the cost of implementing the dialing parity plan is approximately $78,000. Given the Settlement Agreement, we further find that it is appropriate to recover the costs by implementing an equal access recovery charge on originating intrastate (intraLATA and interLATA) switched access minutes in CTC-Idahos local exchanges. We further find that it is reasonable to assess a surcharge of approximately $.00137 per minute (not including the PIC change costs) to recover the conversion costs.
We conclude that adopting the Settlement Agreement and approving CTC-Idahos dialing parity plan as amended, is reasonable, appropriate and in conformance with FCC rules.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement filed in this matter on June 6, 1997, is adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CTC-Idahos dialing parity plan, as amended by the Settlement Agreement, is approved. CTC-Idaho is directed to initiate those remaining actions necessary to meet the August 8, 1997 implementation date. The Company shall file its tariff implementing the cost recovery surcharge and the PIC change charge no later than July 10, 1997.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than August 21, 1998, CTC-Idaho shall file a report with the Commission and those intraLATA carriers serving CTC-Idahos local customers concerning the recovery of its conversion costs for the first 12-month period. To the extent possible, CTC-Idaho and the applicable intraLATA carriers should jointly advise the Commission whether an adjustment in the equal access recovery charge is necessary for the next 11-month period. This report shall recommend the equal access recovery charge for the remaining 11 months beginning September 8, 1998 and ending August 8, 1999.
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. CTC-T-97-2 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. CTC T-97-2 . 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 July 1997.
DENNIS S. HANSEN, PRESIDENT
RALPH NELSON, COMMISSIONER
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
vld/O:CTC-T-97-2.dh3
1 In Order No. 26775 the Commission issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Citizens Telecommunications to provide local exchange service in U S WEST and GTE service areas.
2 A LATA (local access and transport area) is a geographic area designated by the United States District Court in the Modification of Final Judgment in the divestiture of AT&T and the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs). LATAs were created to mark the boundaries within which the BOCs could transport long-distance or toll calls. All of the U S WEST Communications exchanges south of the Salmon River are included in the Idaho LATA. The eight exchanges served by U S WEST in northern Idaho are included in the Spokane LATA. The Coeur dAlene market area (a LATA equivalent) is served by GTE Northwest and is not associated with either the Spokane or Idaho LATA.
3 PIC means preferred interexchange carrier or the carrier to whom the customers toll call is automatically routed to by dialing 1+ the called telephone number.
4 The signatories to the Settlement Agreement are CTC-Idaho, AT&T, and U S WEST. In its Motion accompanying the Settlement Agreement, CTC-Idaho stated that the ITA did not actively participate in the negotiations and, accordingly, did not sign the Settlement Agreement. Motion at 2.
ORDER NO. 27037 -1-
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 8, 1997