HomeMy WebLinkAbout19970421Decision Memo.doc DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER NELSON
COMMISSIONER SMITH
MYRNA WALTERS
STEPHANIE MILLER
DAVE SCHUNKE
JOE CUSICK
BILL EASTLAKE
DAVID SCOTT
WORKING FILE
FROM: DON HOWELL
DATE: APRIL 21, 1997
RE: CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY OF IDAHO=S REQUEST TO IMPLEMENT AN INTRALATA DIALING PARITY PLAN, CASE NO. CTC T-97-2
On March 24, 1997, Citizens Telecommunications Company of Idaho (Citizens of Idaho) filed an Application requesting that the Commission approve an intraLATA toll dialing parity plan. Section 251(b)(3) of the federal Telecommunications Act requires that LECs provide 1+ dialing parity to long distance carriers. Because Citizens of Idahos sister company (Citizens Telecom) has been authorized by this Commission to provide interLATA toll services, the FCC requires that Citizens of Idaho implement intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity no later than August 8, 1997. Citizens of Idahos Application contains the methodology and proposed schedule to implement the toll dialing plan no later than August 8, 1997.
THE APPLICATION
Citizens of Idaho exchanges already provide equal access 1+ interLATA dialing parity. The FCC requires and Citizens plan provides a schedule to implement intraLATA dialing parity. This would provide Citizens local exchange customers with two-PIC capability. In other words, each customer will be presubscribed to one interLATA toll carrier and to one intraLATA toll carrier.
1. Costs. The Company proposes to recover the incremental costs of implementing its dialing parity plan from all intraLATA and interLATA carriers over a two-year period based upon each carriers share of total intrastate (including both intra- and interLATA) minutes of use. Citizens of Idaho will estimate the total intrastate minutes of use for the first twelve months of the cost recovery period. The Company suggests that an equal access recovery charge (EARC) be developed by dividing one-half of the total implementation costs by the total forecasted minutes of use. The EARC surcharge will then be applied to all intrastate originating and terminating minutes of use for a twelve-month period. At the end of the first year, the EARC surcharge will be adjusted to reflect any surplus or deficiency. The adjusted surcharge will then apply to the remaining twelve-month period. At the end of the two-year recovery period, any surplus or deficiency will be charged or returned to the interexchange carriers in proportion to the implementing costs that they have paid. 2. Schedule. In order to meet the August 8, 1997 deadline, Citizens of Idaho proposes the following schedule for implementing the intraLATA equal access dialing.
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 Pre-conversion notification (one time) to end users, by billing inserts, of intraLATA equal access conversions
August 8, 1997 IntraLATA equal access conversion date
3. Customer Notification. The Company proposes a single notification to end users by means of a billing insert. The billing insert would notify customers that they must select an intraLATA toll carrier of their choice. The customers who do not make an affirmative selection for an intraLATA carrier will remain with their pre-existing 1+ intraLATA carrier. New customers who do not make an affirmative selection will not be able to complete 1+ intraLATA calls until they have made such a selection. FCC rules prohibit the Company from automatically assigning customers to their affiliate, Citizens Telecom. Although Citizens of Idaho did not provide any cost data with its Application, the Company has informally advised the Staff that the implementing costs should not be as great as for other companies because Citizens switches are already equal access for interLATA toll.
4. PIC Charges. Citizens of Idaho requests that it be allowed to impose its presently tariffed PIC change service charge for all intraLATA PIC changes, both initial and subsequent. The Company does not believe that end users should be charged for PIC changes during the initial six-month implementation period. After the initial six-month period, each intraLATA carrier should be entitled to decide for itself whether to pass on or to waive the PIC change charge.
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
Citizens has also filed dialing parity plans in Utah and Montana. Proceedings in those states are ongoing. Federal regulations (47 C.F.R. 51.211(c)) do provide that a LEC (or a sister affiliate) providing interLATA toll services shall implement intraLATA and interLATA toll dialing parity throughout that state by August 8, 1997. Citizens has informally notified the Staff that it is providing interLATA toll services and consequently, must implement intraLATA equal access by August 8, 1997. The Company has asked that the Commission approve this plan in a timely manner so that the Company can comply with the FCC deadline. Application at 10.
The Staff (and we presume the interexchange carriers) have several questions concerning the intraLATA dialing parity plan. First, the Application did not contain any estimated costs for implementing the plan or the manner in which the Company will forecast the total intrastate minutes of use (both intra- and interLATA). Second, Citizens proposes to assign existing customers who fail to make an affirmative selection for an intraLATA carrier to the customers pre-existing intraLATA carrier. Third, is it appropriate to recover the cost of the intraLATA dialing parity plan from both intra- and interLATA calls? Finally, the Staff has concerns about the proposed implementation of the PIC change charges.
Given these questions, the Staff believes that it is appropriate to issue a Notice of Application and to schedule a prehearing conference. The purpose of the prehearing conference would be to illicit other areas of concern from interested parties and to allow Citizens to provide answers to some of the questions contained above (e.g., costs, minutes of use, notification, etc.). This would also allow the parties a short period to engage in discovery.
Once Citizens has provided more information and the issues have been delineated at the prehearing conference, then the Commission may wish to consider processing this Application under Modified Procedure.
Commission Decision
Does the Commission desire to schedule a prehearing conference and instruct Citizens of Idaho to provide further information prior to or at the prehearing conference?
Don Howell
vld/M:CTC-T-97-2.dh
DECISION MEMORANDUM 4