20090903final_order_no_30895.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
September 3, 2009
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF QWEST CORPORATION FOR
APPROVAL OF ITS INTERCONNECTION
AGREEMENT WITH CTC TELECOM, INe.
PURSUANT TO 47 U.e. ~ 252(e)
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF TDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION FOR APPROVAL OF ITS
WIRELESS TRAFFIC EXCHANGE
AGREEMENT WITH VERIZON WIRELESS
PURSUANT TO 47 U.C. ~ 252(e)
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF VERIZON NORTHWEST INC. FOR
APPROVAL OF ITS INTERCONNECTION
AGREEMENT WITH NETTALK.COM, INC.
PURSUANT TO 47 U.e. ~ 252(e)
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF MIDV ALE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
INe. FOR APPROVAL OF ITS TRAFFIC
EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WITH VERIZON
WIRELESS PURSUANT TO 47 U.C. ~ 252(e)
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
0 F CUSTER TELEPHONE COO PERA TIVE
INe. FOR APPROVAL OF ITS
NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WITH
ALL TEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC AND ID
HOLDING, LLC PURSUANT TO 47 U.C. ~
252( e)
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF CUSTER TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE,
INe. FOR APPROV AL OF ITS
NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WITH
VERIZON WIRELESS PURSUANT TO 47
e. ~ 252(e)
ORDER NO. 30895
CASE NO. QWE-09-
CASE NO. POT-09-
CASE NO. VZN- T -09-
) CASE NO. MID- T -09-
) CASE NO. CUS-09-
) CASE NO. CUS- T -09-
) ORDER NO. 30895
In these cases, the Commission is asked to approve newly negotiated Interconnection
Agreements. With this Order the Commission approves the Agreements.
BACKGROUND
Under the provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, interconnection
agreements, including amendments thereto, must be submitted to the Commission for approval.
47 U.C. 9252(e)(1). The Commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiations only
if it finds that the agreement: (I) 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.c. 9 252(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 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 (Part 51 J." 47 C.F .R. 9 51.3.
THE APPLICATIONS
1. Owest Corporation and CTC Telecom, Inc., Case No. OWE-09-. On August
, 2009, Qwest submitted an Application for approval of its Interconnection Agreement with
CTc. The Agreement includes the applicable rates, terms and conditions for interconnection
between the companies. The Agreement also includes Service Performance Indicators (PIDs)
and the Performance Assurance Plan (PAP). See Application, Exhibits Band K. Qwest states
that the Agreement was reached through voluntary negotiations and without resorting to
mediation or arbitration.
2. TDS Telecommunications Corporation and Verizon Wireless, Case No. POT-
09-01.On July 30, 2009, TDS, an agent for Potlatch Telephone Company, Inc., filed an
Application seeking Commission approval of its negotiated Wireless Traffic Exchange
Agreement with Verizon. The Agreement includes the applicable terms and conditions
reciprocal compensation rates and billing procedures.
3. Verizon Northwest Inc. and Net Talk. com, Inc., Case No. VZN-09-01.
August 7, 2009, Verizon Northwest filed an Application seeking approval of its Interconnection
Agreement with Net Talk.The Joint Agreement allows for the interconnection of each
ORDER NO. 30895
company s facilities for the purpose of providing customers with increased choices among local
telecommunications services. The Application reveals that Net Talk agreed to adopt in substance
the Interconnection Agreement between Verizon Northwest and Ymax Communications Corp as
an effective Agreement in the State ofldaho. See Order No. 30127.
4. Midvale Telephone Exchange, Inc. and Verizon Wireless, Case No. MID- T -09-
On August 19, 2009, Midvale filed an Application seeking approval of its Traffic Exchange
Agreement with Verizon. The Agreement includes the applicable rates, terms and conditions
pertaining to the interchange of traffic, facility/network operations and billing/payment
compensation arrangements between the parties. The Agreement was reached through voluntary
negotiations.
5. Custer Telephone Cooperative, Inc. and Alltel Communications, LLC and ID
Holding, LLC, Case No. CUS-09-On August 19, 2009, Custer filed an Application
seeking approval of its negotiated agreement with Alltel. The Agreement includes the applicable
rates, terms and conditions pertaining to the exchange of traffic and reciprocal compensation
arrangements between the parties.
voluntary negotiations.
Custer states that the Agreement was reached through
6. Custer Telephone Cooperative, Inc. and Verizon Wireless, Case No. CUS-09-
On August 19, 2009, Custer filed an Application seeking approval of its negotiated
agreement with Verizon. The Agreement includes the applicable rates, terms and conditions
pertaining to the exchange of traffic and reciprocal compensation arrangements between the
parties. Custer states that the Agreement was reached through voluntary negotiations.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the foregoing Applications and does not find any terms or
conditions that it considers to be discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff believes
that the Interconnection Agreements are consistent with the pro-competitive policies of this
Commission, the Idaho Legislature, and the federal Telecommunications Act. Accordingly,
Staff recommended that the Commission approve the foregoing Agreements.
CO MMISSI 0 N D ECISI 0 N
Under the terms of the Telecommunications Act, interconnection agreements
including amendments thereto, must be submitted to the Commission for approval. 47 U.C. 9
252(e)(1). The Commission s review is limited, however. The Commission may reject an
ORDER NO. 30895
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. Id.
Based upon our review of the Applications and the Staffs recommendation, 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 these 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
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest
Corporation and CTC Telecom, Inc., Case No. QWE-09-, is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Wireless Traffic Exchange Agreement between
TDS Telecommunications Corporation and Verizon Wireless, Case No. POT-09-, is
approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Interconnection Agreement between Verizon
Northwest Inc. and Net Talk.com, Inc., Case No. VZN-09-, is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Traffic Exchange Agreement between Midvale
Telephone Exchange, Inc. and Verizon Wireless, Case No. MID-09-, is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Negotiated Agreement between Custer
Telephone Cooperative, Inc. and Alltel Communications, LLC and ID Holding, LLC, Case No.
CUS- T -09-, is approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Negotiated Agreement between Custer
Telephone Cooperative, Inc. and Verizon Wireless, Case No. CUS-09-, 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 62-619.
ORDER NO. 30895
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this :3 rJ..
day of September 2009.
" ~~
KE SIDENT
~A-
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
O:QWE-T -09-14 _POT- l' -09-- YZN- T -09-- MID- 1'-09-- CUS- l' -09-- CUS- l' -09-03 - np
ORDER NO. 30895