19980214Comments.doc

WELDON B. STUTZMAN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]

Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W WASHINGTON
BOISE ID 83702-5983

Attorney for the Commission Staff

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION OF AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES OF IDAHO AND CITIZENS TELECOMMUNI-CATIONS COMPANY OF IDAHO FOR APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR INTERCONNECTION PURSUANT TO 47 U.S.C.  252(e).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. CTC-T-98-1

COMMENTS OF THE
COMMISSION STAFF

COMES NOW the Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, by and through its Attorney of record, Weldon B. Stutzman, Deputy Attorney General, and in response to the Notice of Joint Petition for Approval of Interconnection Agreement and Notice of Modified Procedure issued in Order No. 27352 on February 5, 1998, submits the following comments.
On January 28, 1998, Citizens Telecommunications Company of Idaho (CTC) and AT&T Wireless Services of Idaho, Inc. (AWS), a provider of wireless telecommunication services, submitted a joint application for approval of an interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e)(1), (2)(A) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Companies indicated the agreement had been reached through voluntary negotiations, and claimed that the agreement was not discriminatory against any other company as CTC has made the terms of the

agreement available to other carriers, and that the agreement was consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. They requested the Commission approve the agreement without a hearing or intervention by other parties.
Section 252 indicates that such agreements are to be submitted to state commissions for approval. Agreements adopted through negotiation may only be rejected if the state commission finds that:

(I) the agreement (or portion thereof) discriminates
against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the
agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement
or portion is not consistent with the public interest,
convenience and necessity:

Staff reviewed the language of this agreement and did not find any terms or conditions that, if made available to other carriers, Staff would consider discriminatory. As this is the first agreement between a wireless telecommunications provider and CTC that has been submitted to this Commission, Staff cannot compare it against another to determine whether it contains any preferential terms. CTC asserts that these terms will be made available to other carriers.
Staff concurs with the Companies claim that the agreement is consistent with the
pro-competitive policies of the Commission, the Idaho Legislature, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and therefore is consistent with the public interest.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Commission approve the interconnection agreement as filed.

DATED at Boise, Idaho, this day of February 1998.

____________________________________
Weldon B. Stutzman
Deputy Attorney General
Technical Staff: Wayne Hart

i:wpfiles/umisc/comments/ctct981.ws

STAFF COMMENTS 1 FEBRUARY 24, 1998