HomeMy WebLinkAbout19980107Decision Memo.doc DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER NELSON
COMMISSIONER SMITH
MYRNA WALTERS
TONYA CLARK
STEPHANIE MILLER
DAVE SCHUNKE
JOE CUSICK
WAYNE HART
DON HOWELL
BEV BARKER
DAVID SCOTT
WORKING FILE
FROM: CHERI C. COPSEY
DATE: JANUARY 7, 1998
RE: APPLICATION OF EASTON TELECOM SERVICES, INC. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO PROVIDE LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE AS A COMPETITIVE LOCAL CARRIER. -- CASE NO. ETS-T 97 1.
On March, 5, 1997, the Commission received an Application from Easton Telecom Services, Inc. for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide local exchange service as a competitive local carrier. The Application indicates that Easton wanted a Certificate to provide resold local exchange service throughout the state of Idaho. The Application was inadequate. It did not contain the necessary information to be included with an Application for a Certificate submitted by a new local service provider in Idaho as set forth in Procedural Order No. 26665 issued November 7, 1996. Staff contacted Easton several times indicating what information needed to be included. Specifically, Easton failed to include a description of its organization form, current financials for 1996, a map showing the proposed service area(s) in Idaho, or a statement that Easton will comply with the Commission Rules. Although Easton was fully informed as to what information was necessary to allow review of its proposal, it has failed to comply with this Commissions Procedural Order.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff reviewed this Application and found Eastons Application insufficient. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Application be returned, dismissed without prejudice and the docket closed pursuant to IDAPA 31.01.01.065.
After reviewing the Easton Application, Staff noted that several items required by Commission Procedural Order No. 26665 were not included in the Application and, therefore, contacted Easton by telephone. See Letter attached to this Decision Memorandum as Exhibit A. Staff spoke to Mr. Patrick Crocker, attorney for Easton, and told him what information was necessary for the Commission to consider the Application. Staff called Easton several times and finally on July 23, 1997, sent the attached letter to Mr. Crocker confirming what information was necessary.
Neither Mr. Crocker nor anyone else from Easton has responded to either this letter or to the previous requests for additional information. As of this date, Staff has not received any further information.
Without this additional information, Staff is not able to conduct a meaningful analysis of Eastons Application and to render an opinion whether Easton is qualified and able to provide adequate service to its potential customers in the state of Idaho. Staff returned the Application to Easton on July 23, 1997, and, therefore, recommends the docket be closed.
Commission Decision
Should the docket closed?
___________________________
Cheri C. Copsey
M:etst971.cc
DECISION MEMORANDUM 1